Before we begin today's proceedings, I would like  I feel compelled, really
 to make some general observations and comments about petitions and the way we
handle them in the House of Assembly. Bear with me as I share with you a
reflection of my thinking and some suggestions and comments for the House. They
are not really suggestions, actually; they are directions from the Chair as to
how we would want to proceed with petitions as we move forward.

The right of citizens to petition a Parliament for redress of a grievance is
a fundamental one, established by centuries-old traditions. As early as the
thirteenth century, the Crown received petitions for remedies. Note that I said
it was the Crown which was petitioned, as this was much before the English
Parliament existed. As the Commons developed in the English Parliament, the
Commons itself would petition the Crown frequently, including petitions for
amendments to laws. That practice led to the current practice of bills being
brought forward to a Parliament for debate and decision.

I want to emphasize two points here: first, the act of petitioning by
citizens has a long history and must be protected; and, petitions were directed
to the Crown  that is the Executive government.

O'Brien and Bosc note that by the seventeenth century, the modern form of
petitions had been developed: they were addressed to Parliament, they used a
very prescribed form, and they dealt with perceived public grievances. The
format included in our Standing Orders, even though it was not added until 1999,
descends from these earlier practices.

Our Standing Orders in this House respecting petitions  number ninety to
ninety-seven  were developed in 1951 and have been essentially unchanged from
the 1920 Standing Orders of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In my view,
these existing Standing Orders have serious shortcomings. Nevertheless, they are
our Standing Orders and until the Standing Orders Committee makes
recommendations  and this House adopts such recommendations  we are guided by
the current Standing Orders. We will be guided by those as well as our past
practices and rulings by previous Speakers.

Members will be aware that when petitions are presented to the House of
Assembly, we insist that the prayer of the petition be within the competence or
capacity of the House of Assembly. For instance, the House of Assembly cannot
pave a road or build a school. Those matters are within the powers of the
Executive Branch of government and not the Legislative Branch. When these
petitions are brought to the House, we insist that they take a form of a prayer
and call upon the House to urge government to do something. When the House
receives these petitions, we simply forward them to the appropriate government
department. It is obvious that the vast majority of these petitions are
requesting action from the Executive Branch  just as they were in the
thirteenth century. The practice of presenting such petitions to the House may
serve to bring public attention to an issue, but the House simply moves them
forward, the petitions after it is presented.

Yesterday, I understand that a member discussed, on an Open Line show, a
point of order that had been raised respecting his May 31 presentation of a
petition. During that discussion, the member indicated that only three
signatures were required on a petition to be presented to the House. Upon
reviewing the transcript of that talk show and that discussion that had taken
place, I have extracted a quote from that text. "I have collected thousands of
signatures on petitions over the last three months and the only requirement of
the legislature is that I present three signatures...."

I would not want members  or the public - to think it is possible to
separate pages of signatures such that one petition can be presented to this
House many times. A citizen signing a petition which, for example, may have
1,000 signatures, there is an expectation that that petition be presented in its
entirety. If a member were to separate signature pages in this fashion so that
one petition miraculously becomes twenty or thirty petitions, I want members to
fully understand and to know that I would consider such a practice to be
dishonourable and unworthy of members of this House.

In light of the point of order raised on Monday, and the member's comments on
the Open Line show yesterday, I have decided to strictly apply our Standing
Orders respecting petitions. Standing Orders 91 and 92 speak of signatures on
petitions. I made the comment early about the origin of our current Standing
Orders dating back to the 1920s. Of course, these Standing Orders were written
long before photocopiers, fax machines, electronic signatures, PDF files, et
cetera. Nevertheless, it is my view it clearly establishes the need for original
inked signatures. Accordingly, I will require in the future, that all signatures
be original, no electronic signatures, photocopies, faxes or PDF files. This
will not present a hardship for members, as all it will mean is that the
petition will now be delayed by a day or two, whatever time it takes for the
mail to deliver the petition to the member who is presenting it. Upon reflection
of the petitions that have been presented in this House, the issues that are
commonly brought to the House by petition are not time-sensitive, so a delay of
a day or two will not make a significant difference.

The other matter respecting petitions follows from Speaker Fitzgerald's
ruling which required that all petitions be vetted by the Clerk and Clerk
Assistant before they are presented to the House. I am going to extend that
ruling further. We will now require that petitions be certified, not merely
vetted, which is outlined, actually, in our current Standing Orders under
Practice Recommendation 3(b) in the Appendix to our Standing Orders. That
certification will require that the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant place their
initials, in ink, at the start of the line containing the prayer of the petition
and on each sheet of signatures, which have to be originals. This must occur by
12:00 noon of each sitting day.

The certification will confirm for the member and this House that the
petition is in order and suitable for presentation to the House. As the Speaker,
I will then know that each member have acceptable petitions according to our
Standing Orders and my rulings and I will be able to recognize members
accordingly as they stand in routine proceedings. This will avoid  which
happens on occasion  instances where the Speaker calls upon a member who has
not vetted their petition with the Clerk or the Clerk Assistance, contrary to
the early ruling of Speaker Fitzgerald.

Neither of these measures will impair the ability of members to present
legitimate petitions to the House. They simply ensure that certain reasonable
standards are maintained and that the integrity  and this is a critical piece 
the integrity of the whole practice of petitioning is maintained.

In conclusion, petitions are an important element of the democratic process
and their use and integrity will be safeguarded in this House. These two new
measures will be implemented, beginning tomorrow, to ensure this, once again:
Only original signatures will be accepted on petitions, and petitions must be
certified by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant by 12:00 noon each sitting day.

I ask members in future, in presenting petitions, that they be guided by this
ruling. One thing that is extremely important  I give a brief history here
because it is important to understand the benefit of petitions and their place
in a democratic society, but at the same time the onus is on us, as members, to
protect the integrity of that process and to not manipulate it for what might be
some political gain.

I ask members to be guided by my ruling, and we will start enforcing it
tomorrow.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we will have members' statements from the Member for
the District of Signal Hill  Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The
Straits  White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's East; the
Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of
Humber Valley; and the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill  Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to salute a group of dedicated volunteers who are making a huge
difference in a corner of my district.

The Cavell Park Community Garden has just launched its first year of
operation. Conceived by writer-actor-clown Sara Tilley, the garden is in a
previously unused section of Cavell Park, off Quidi Vidi Road.

Sara enjoys growing her own vegetables and wanted to share that pride with
her neighbourhood. She spoke to people at the City of St. John's, who offered
their unqualified support. The Community Garden is launching with twenty-five
full-sized raised garden beds, plus four table beds designed for people with
mobility issues, and three small beds sized for children. I note that the beds
are all raised because of the pollution of soil in the downtown of St. John's.

Sara and her group held bottle drives and other fundraisers throughout the
district. With the money they raised, and support from local businesses, they
got the garden ready to go.

I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the Cavell Park Community Garden
all the best in this, their inaugural year. I invite anybody who lives in Signal
Hill  Quidi Vidi to get in touch with them with regard to using the community
garden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits  White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate two individuals from
Canon Richards Memorial Academy in Flower's Cove. Student Tony Lavallee and
teacher Tony Power were honoured at last Friday's School Sports Newfoundland and
Labrador Awards Banquet.

Tony Lavallee was named the Province's Male Student-Athlete of the Year. Tony
has represented Canon Richards in ball hockey, softball, volleyball, badminton,
cross-country running, basketball, and table tennis. He went to nine provincial
tournaments during high school. This year, his teams won the provincial
volleyball championship and placed second in ball hockey. Tony is also
provincial singles and doubles badminton champ.

Teacher and coach Tony Power was runner-up for the provincial Coach of the
Year Award. He also received the Northern Peninsula region's regional
recognition award, presented annually to an individual in each of the eleven
Sports Newfoundland and Labrador regions who has made major contributions to
sport at the regional level.

Mr. Speaker, that two such outstanding individuals can be recognized from one
school says a great deal to me about the culture of commitment and excellence at
Canon Richards Memorial Academy.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Tony Lavallee and Tony
Power.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize and congratulate the students from
Gonzaga High School who recently returned from the WorldStride Heritage Music
Festival in New York.

The bands and choirs from Gonzaga excelled in the competition, and I would
like to list some of the awards: the Girls Choir and Chamber Choir won Silver
Award Plaques; the Concert and Jazz Bands won Gold Award Plaques; the Concert
Band won Outstanding Band Group Trophies for their category; the Concert and
Jazz Bands won the Instrumental Sweepstakes Trophy and one of five Adjudicators
Award Trophies; and, for the third year in a row, Gonzaga High School was
awarded the Festival Sweepstakes Awards Trophy; quite an accomplishment.

I should also mention the Avalon East District Band, which also won a Gold
Award Plaque, Outstanding Band Group Trophy, and an Adjudicators Award Trophy as
well.

The trip, of course, would not have been possible without the teacher and
parent volunteers who accompanied their students to New York. Special thanks and
congratulations are in order for teachers Doug Vaughan and Sheila Ryan. With
such people involved in our schools, it is easy to see why our Province's music
education program is envied by people across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Madonna my whole life and she has always freely
given her time, her talent, and her energy to various community and church-based
organizations in our area.

I can attest that if there is something on the go in Flatrock  whether it is
a community function, clean up or church service  Madonna Wilkinson is there
offering her full support either to organize or to lend a helping hand. She is
also the lead organizer in community events such as the Terry Fox Run,
Remembrance Day Memorial Service, and the Canada Day Memorial Service.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna is a talented singer, dancer, and accordion player. She
often provides the entertainment at many events and functions that she helps
organize. She was even enlisted by a local group, Shanneyganock, to sign on
their recent album. The song she sings is McNamara's Band, and it is a
great song.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna Wilkinson is an outstanding volunteer and she is also an
outstanding person. I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in
congratulating Madonna on receiving her award for the Volunteer Recreation
Recognition Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in his hon. House to acknowledge a
shining example of youth engagement in the City of Mount Pearl.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team was formed in 2005 to be a voice for youth
in the community. Since that time, this group has been engaged in numerous
community activities such as the organization of Youth Week activities,
participation in the Frosty Festival and Mount Pearl City Days celebrations,
organization of community food drives, and facilitation of public speaking
events, just to name a few.

The group's membership is comprised of youth from the city's two junior high
and high schools. These young men and women are true role models and should
remind us all of the valuable contribution youth have to offer to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the
Mount Pearl Youth Action Team for their significant contribution to the
community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend Mr. Frank Dyke on the occasion of
his ninetieth birthday and also on the launch of his book: To be Frank -
Memories of an Extraordinary Life.

Mr. Dyke is a World War II veteran who was born in Port Union, Trinity Bay on
June 9, 1922 and he moved to Reidville where he retired in the 1990s. His book
is a life story depicting his personal and family experiences during the war and
afterward.

Mr. Speaker, every day, seniors in our Province are working, learning new
skills, volunteering their time, and writing life stories. Their wisdom, skills,
and abilities are evident throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Dyke is
a great example of a senior who has contributed tremendously to our Province's
history  both through his writings and his dedication of service during war
time.

Unselfish and noble actions are the notable hallmarks of a great life. To
this, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending
Mr. Dyke both on his book launch and on the celebration of his ninetieth
birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House during Environment
Week, June 3-9, to recognize the accomplishments of a number of environmental
leaders for their dedication and efforts. The Environmental Awards Program is an
annual celebration of environmental achievements in our Province and raises
awareness of the individuals, groups, and businesses that are taking action to
protect and sustain our environment. It is a joint initiative sponsored by the
Department of Environment and Conservation, the Multi-Materials Stewardship
Board, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes.

I had the pleasure earlier today, Mr. Speaker, of joining the awards
recipients at a ceremony to recognize their outstanding environmental and
conservation achievements. Mr. Speaker, the winners of the Environmental Awards
for 2012 in each category are as follows: Philip Gavell, Conception Bay South 
Individual Category; Conservation Corps Newfoundland and Labrador  Community
Group or Organization Category; Bishops College, St. John's  Youth, Youth Group
for School Category; Curb It Recycling Program, the City of St. John's 
Municipality or Regional Waste Management Committee Category; and, Scotia
Centre, St. John's  Business or Industry Leader Category.

In addition to being celebrated at the awards ceremony, Mr. Speaker, each of
the winners also received at $1,000 honorarium from the MMSB to go towards
furthering their own environmental projects or to donate to an environmental
cause of their choice.

These men and women are environmental ambassadors for our Province and they
have demonstrated tremendous ingenuity and determination, along with an
impressive passion for our environment. We are all responsible for the
environment in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is so important to
recognize their great accomplishments and encourage others to follow their
example.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy and sustainable environment yields healthy people, a
stronger economy, more vibrant communities, and a legacy for which we can be
proud. We will continue to raise awareness about sustaining our Province for
generations to come, not only during Environment Week but every week of the
year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I, too, would
like to congratulate all of the award winners for the prestigious awards that
they received.

Also, as we all know, Environment Week  as the minister mentioned  it is
not just these groups that are involved with the environment, it is all groups
across Newfoundland and Labrador, and all individuals; it is becoming an
individual issue throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The Multi-Stewardship
Board is also a major component of environment conservation across the Province
and they also must be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention also, I notice all of the
winners are from St. John's again. I am not sure, but I must say there are a lot
of environmental initiatives on the West Coast. I see the Minister of Finance
agreeing, that we have a lot of great environmental initiatives on the go on the
West Coast, and I am sure some of them deserve some recognition across the
Province and Labrador. I just want to thank all of them for all their hard work
also out on the West Coast. I know Memorial University has one, the MUN Campus
has one, I know there is a community garden one out in 

AN HON. MEMBER: The Centre for Environmental Excellence.

MR. JOYCE: The Centre for Environmental Excellence out on the West Coast.
I just ask the minister, that we include all the Province. Also, as we know, if
there is any way we can get the glass containers recycled, I say to the
minister. I know it is a hard issue, but that is something we are trying, even a
bit more across the Province to help out our environment.

As we noticed, Mr. Speaker, in this 2012 Budget by the federal government, by
Harper, we have to be more vigilant as a Province to ensure that our environment
is safe, and the regulations are kept up to standards that we all can live and
have a safe environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement.

I would also like to thank the award winners this year for their continuing
efforts to protect and enhance the environment. The award winners today
represent a dichotomy of the population and signify a strong awareness and
message as to the importance of environment in people's minds these days. Some
years ago it would have been almost unheard of to hear the involvement of
business, for example, in the environmental message, but that has thankfully
been changing over the last few years.

I would also like to thank those who were nominated and recognize them for
all their efforts, and remind them they have not gone unnoticed and their
efforts unrewarded.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Costs are rising at the Muskrat Falls project, and the CEO of Emera stated
yesterday that the $1.2 billion is still accurate for the Maritime Link.
Currently, under the term sheet, Emera is guaranteed 20 per cent of Muskrat
power for a 20 per cent investment into the project.

I ask the minister: Would not this now mean that Emera is paying less than 20
per cent of the project costs, and if so, will they still receive 20 per cent of
the power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We obviously have to wait until we get our Decision Gate 3 numbers to know
what the cost will be in terms of the generating station and the Labrador-Island
Link. I can assure the member opposite though that if there is a cost overrun in
terms of what Emera should share, then they will share that. It will not simply
be a matter of the Province taking on all of the overruns in relation to the
link; I can assure the Opposition Leader of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Now, I would just like to go back to the minister. This is not
about the overruns; this is about at sanction time.

At sanction time, if it is less than 20 per cent for the Maritime Link, will
they still get 20 per cent of the project?

Essentially, what will happen is the agreement that is in place will be the
agreement that is followed, Mr. Speaker. What I was talking about is not the
overruns that we would know about in the Decision Gate 3 numbers prior to
sanction. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the cost of the Maritime Link or it
comes to the cost of the Labrador-Island Link, we will look at all of those. I
can assure the member opposite that the term sheet will be complied with. The
plan is to provide Emera for 20 per cent of the power, but again for the cost
that has already been agreed upon, and again proportionate to extra cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The promise of a federal loan guarantee is based upon a $6.2 billion project.

I ask the minister: Have any discussions taken place with the federal
government to ensure this promise would still apply if the project goes to $8
billion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Discussions with the federal government and Nova Scotia are ongoing on almost
a weekly basis as to the finalizing of the federal loan guarantee. Mr. Speaker,
I think one thing that has to be looked at is the $6.2 billion we talk about
does not include any of the impacts of the federal loan guarantee. The federal
loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, could result in a percentage reduction of 2 per
cent to 3 per cent and could save anywhere from $600 million to $900 million on
the project cost. The costs are still fluid.

As we move along, Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee would be for the $6.2
billion we are talking about now, but that could reduce costs and ensure that
ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador pay fair and reasonable electricity
rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not hear that it would be adjusted to the $8 billion. If the minister
wants to clarify that next he can.

Mr. Speaker, back in January, after missing two deadlines, we were told that
the finalized commercial arrangements between Emera and Nalcor would be coming
soon. In April, Nalcor stated that it was just inches away.

I ask the minister: The last missed deadline was over four months ago, and
now it is two months since we were just inches away, so what is causing this
ongoing delay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is the number of agreements that have to be put in place and the
complexity of the agreements which require lawyers being involved, which require
extensive meetings between Emera and Nalcor. I think the Premier indicated when
we met with Premier Dexter, Mr. Huskilson, and Mr. Martin about a month or two
ago that the Emera agreements were very close.

Even after the agreements are signed, there is a due-diligence period that
has to be applied. That is where the matter stands, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the
member opposite that the term sheet and the agreements are very close to being
finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, we asked the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency
if he had any discussions with a group known as CLAC; that stands for the
Christian Labour Association of Canada.

I now ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Have you or any of your
officials or Nalcor had any conversations with this group regarding work on the
Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who this group is. I can
tell the member opposite that I did meet with the Resource Development Council
at one point, who represents the sixteen unions that are generally present at
these special projects. I had a general discussion with the individuals involved
as to the labour situation in the Province, as to the need to get our
apprentices into the workplace, Mr. Speaker. As far as this CLAC, I have no idea
who they are, and I can assure the member opposite I certainly have not had any
conversations with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor made a submission to the Oakley review on the Special Project Orders,
arguing for an open-shop approach. However, Mr. Oakley concluded that the
current model provides sufficient flexibility.

I ask the minister: Why does Nalcor want to change the Special Project
Orders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is going
with this. Mr. Oakley did a review. Everybody was welcome to the review; not
only were they welcome to the review at the initial stages, after Mr. Oakley
drew up his report they were also told what the report was and advised that they
could submit some more recommendations or comment on Mr. Oakley's report.

I do not know where the hon. member is coming from. There were many people
who presented, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor, of course, presented to Mr. Oakley; so did
Emera; so did the RDC, the council of unions in this Province; so did Vale; so
did the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; so did the Employers'
Council; so did Hebron; so did CLRA. Mr. Speaker, wherever his source is coming
from, I suggest he take him to the wood shed and give him a good clack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo  La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, notice has been given for Bill 29, An Act To
Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Are you prepared to arrange a briefing for us
on this bill before it is called for debate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, briefing schedules, as I understand it, are
arranged between the House Leaders. The notice has been given, but with respect
to a future briefing, I have no information or explanation on this as yet, Mr.
Speaker. Ordinarily, briefings have been given all along. With respect to this
particular bill, I cannot make a comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo  La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report on the College of the
North Atlantic's daycare referenced obvious moisture problems, including bubbled
paint, water stains, and damaged ceiling tiles. For years now the response has
been to replace damaged ceiling tiles.

I ask the minister: How has the response to water damage all these years been
ceiling tile replacement and not an air quality inspection, given the well known
links of excess moisture to mould growth, as well as the continual admission of
these children to hospital?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer this question in my capacity,
because the daycare centre we are talking about is located within the College of
the North Atlantic. On a more global perspective, and from government in general
 and I know this from former portfolios as well, Mr. Speaker  we have done an
incredible amount of work to ensure that the environments, in particular the
environments we have for the children in this Province, whether through daycare
or through our schools, are brought up to the safest standard as possible. This
government has spent millions and millions of dollars to ensure that the
environments which are considered learning environments for our children are
safe environments. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the daycare at the College of
the North Atlantic, we provide no other standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo  La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report is dated May 8, yet
the daycare was not closed until May 28.

You have said government deals with issues it has to deal with. I ask the
minister: How do we account for a three-week delay in response when children's
health is at risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when information is collected on any buildings
that indicate there is a safety concern, due diligence is done, analyses are
done, and maybe subsequent testing is done. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon.
member, if at any time it comes to my attention as the minister that we do have
an unsafe environment, we have absolutely no worries or no concerns that the
appropriate action will be taken at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, children in Charlottetown have been taught in a gymnasium for
months now, since the school was closed for mould. We are thirteen weeks away
from the next school season and we know that the Department of Education and the
minister have been looking at some options for the students in this school.

I would like to ask him today: What is the plan for September to ensure these
children have a suitable classroom space?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I have to do is commend the parent community and the student
community in Charlottetown, because they have worked closely with us.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting held in the community last night, a very
positive meeting, is my understanding. We are looking at putting in temporary
classrooms for this September. The community has asked us to consider something
in conjunction with Municipal Affairs, and I will tell the member I did, indeed,
meet with the minister and two of his officials this morning to see if we can
accommodate their request. We will do everything that we can to support the
school and this entire community. Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead with having
something in place for the coming school year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister when we can expect to see a decision on
whether they are going to replace this school, look at remediation, or what the
case is going to be  I guess the longer term solution  for the children in the
community.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have to go through, I suppose, the rigmarole
at arriving at a final decision. I will tell the member that Thursday before
last I met with the CEO of the Western District, met with him again last week,
met with him and spoke with him in a teleconference this morning, to find a way
forward.

I cannot give her an exact date, Mr. Speaker, but I know the community, the
member, are all looking for that final answer. I will give it to them as soon as
I possibly can and we are working on it as quickly as we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few days ago I asked about the closure of the licensed practical nurse
program at three campuses and cuts in seats at three others, as was outlined in
the LPN workforce model report. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not give me any
answer at that time, so I ask again if they can confirm now the number of
programs and the number of seats for licensed practical nurses that will be
eliminated at the College of the North Atlantic come September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Department of
Health and Community Services has done an extensive analysis on the need for LPN
education in this Province, and has certainly looked at the sites and the number
of seats that we would need at each site. The College of the North Atlantic has
that information under active review and the college will, I guess, be in a
position to indicate how many seats and at what locations they will be offering
the program in September. At this time, that review has not been finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the report here and the analysis that was done. We are only
three months away from the enrolment season of the College of the North Atlantic
and we know what the recommended cuts are here. This was done in consultation
with the minister's department, the Department of Health, the college, the
College of the LPNs, and some of the health authorities.

I ask the minister why it is taking so long to disclose the information and
when can we expect to find out what the plan is for September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not about the disclosure of information.
It is about the final decision of the College of the North Atlantic of how many
seats they feel are appropriate and at what sites, Mr. Speaker. So it is not
that we are not disclosing the information. The analysis is done, the
information is in the hands of the college, and they will do due diligence to
determine how they will offer that program in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister stated that the reason
he was going to destroy an access road near Parson's Pond was for conservation 
to protect the moose and caribou population in the area. The environmental
assessment submitted by Nalcor in 2010 raises no concern for moose and clearly
shows that the caribou herd is at least five kilometres from the road.

I ask the minister: What is the real reason you insist on destroying this
valuable public infrastructure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is coming
from on this. We take advice on the removal of roads that are built for industry
or for cutting wood and so on from our Wildlife Division, Mr. Speaker, and our
expert at SDSS. So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor would certainly not influence the
decision as a developer of the conservation measures of the Department of
Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Speaker, this was something that was done because of advice I had taken
from biologists with our Wildlife Division  a very educated, concerned group.
As the hon. member was concerned a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, but I guess he
has changed hats a little bit. Now he is not so concerned about the caribou or
the moose populations in this area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I ask if the minister will table this information he says he
has from wildlife that he just referred to.

Mr. Speaker, the Parson's Pond Road is being destroyed because Nalcor claims
to have failed to have found oil. If Nalcor had been successful, the road would
have remained. So, conservation is not an issue.

How can the minister tell the people of this Province that he insists on
throwing away more public money to cover up this road than he would if oil had
been discovered and he left it there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member to do his research and go and read
the EA, Mr. Speaker. It is all laid out there, all the residents of the area,
all the people of the Province, had the ability to comment on this all the way
along, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing something for the right reasons. It would be very easy for me,
Mr. Speaker, to stand here today and do a political thing and say, yes, we will
leave the road alone. Mr. Speaker, on times, this is a government that stands
for the right thing. Whether you are the Premier, whether you are the Cabinet,
or whether you are the caucus, Mr. Speaker, we are standing for the right thing
on this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when this government believed that the federal
government was not living up to their responsibility to manage inland fisheries,
this Province organized its own Inland Fish Enforcement division to supplement
federal efforts. Now the federal government is cutting five or six DFO offices
in the Province, gutting enforcement by fisheries officers and river guardians.

I ask the minister: Is government planning to staff up its own Inland
Enforcement division in response to these office closures?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is responsible for
the Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife but not for DFO. It is a federal
matter, what the federal government is doing there. We are obviously going to
look at our own initiatives and our own responsibilities here to see how they
are impacted. At this stage, we have no comment to make on the cuts of the
federal government with respect to how it affects the impacts on wildlife in the
Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, without strong, obvious, and vigorous
enforcement on the part of Inland Enforcement, it will take no time before the
last salmon in the Province is taken by a poacher now that DFO is withdrawing
their support. This would decimate the outfitter industry of the Province and
wipe out our sports fishing activity.

What actions will this government take to control poaching on our rivers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, we merged the Wildlife and Inland Fish
Division and created a very effective division to protect our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the results we are getting and the impact that
group is having.

With respect to the cuts the member speaks about in DFO, Mr. Speaker, if
there are impacts on the natural resources of this Province, and impacts on our
Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife, we will have a look at it and see what is
going on. In terms of making any plans or arrangements at this point in time to
accommodate any impacts of the federal government cuts, Mr. Speaker, we are not
at that stage yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In the media yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources said that
government had outlined their framework for assistance with Kruger should the
company and the unions make a deal. The minister further said that government
would not make this plan public at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has he informed union
leaders of this plan or has he sent Kruger to the table with an unfair
bargaining advantage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the member opposite, I have spoken to the union leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out to the Minister of Natural Resources that he has no
idea of what I do and what I do not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers, their
families, and the thousands of other workers who rely on the mill directly or
indirectly are very worried about their future. Yesterday, government seemed to
take offence at our questions regarding how government is handling this crisis.
Mr. Speaker, voicing the concerns of people is not grandstanding, it is our
duty.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When is government going to meet
with the union to outline the framework with them as they have with the company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated to the unions in my meetings with them that the framework would
involve offering reasonable support. It would not involve subsidies and it would
involve the power asset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a role for government to play in the current crisis at Corner Brook
Pulp and Paper. Workers are fearful and distrustful of Kruger's commitment to
maintaining the pension plan already in place.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What will government do to ensure
that current and former Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers do not lose any
future pension benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiations are ongoing. The president of the union indicated today they are
happy with that. We have four MHAs, two in the Opposition and two on the
government side, Mr. Speaker, whose friends, family and colleagues are concerned
about this. We will continue to monitor the situation, Mr. Speaker, and if an
agreement is reached, we will be there to help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said
unions do not want government to impose themselves in the union negotiations,
nor does the owner. I say to the minister that holding Kruger to its legislative
responsibilities regarding pensions for workers in this Province is not
interfering in negotiations.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he step up for the workers in
Corner Brook and show them concrete proof of his support to them in their
struggle over pensions with the Kruger company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matters that are facing the people of Corner Brook are very critical. I
can assure you and I can assure the people of Corner Brook and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that we will continue to support their efforts to
reach an agreement between the workers and the company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the House we are going to be
debating a government motion on an east-west power grid which has been a policy
of the New Democratic Party for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is this motion here
today because government cannot get a deal with Emera to supply electrical
power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This motion arises as a result of recent discussions of a national energy
plan. Our position is quite simple, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a national
energy plan when you have one province blocking another. In order for there to
be a national energy plan, there has to be a rectifying of the historical
inequity which exists between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits  White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Kruger shuts its paper mill in Corner Brook, the effects of
the closure will reverberate across the Province. Everyone in the Province will
feel its effect. For example, sawmills will lose their market for biomass, which
has helped many of them survive through a tough industry. Government has failed
to develop local markets for industrial wood pellets and has failed to assist in
opening foreign markets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What is
government's plan to address this troubled industry for long-term
sustainability?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the members of the Official Opposition
are saying, perhaps they should talk to the unions. We as a government are doing
everything we can, Mr. Speaker. We are all, as I indicated yesterday, trying to
transcend political boundaries here and deal with a situation that affects not
only the people of Western Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but the
people of this Province. This is not about political grandstanding on our part;
this is about an attempt to find a solution to save a very valuable part of this
Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits  White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to the minister's statement yesterday in the House, ISO, FSC, and
CSA certification is not a chicken-and-egg situation. First comes certification,
then industry can grow globally. So, Mr. Speaker, this is what Abitibi and
Kruger understood. They achieved this and these international certifications.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why can he not
understand this and move forward with the development of our stagnant industry
by certifying part of Crown lands?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested or helped, Mr. Speaker, provide money of up to $10 million
for the plant in Roddickton; we have allowed for another $1 million for the
Northern Peninsula  up to $1 million for the harvesting of wood. We are doing
our best that we can to try to ensure that the forest industry in this Province
continues, and we are going to try first and foremost to save the mill in Corner
Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits  White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, certification is certainly needed to
advance the industry. The Province administers the federal Growing Forward
program, which is designed to meet unique challenges facing developing
agricultural industry, yet government cut the legal land survey program, which
closes the door for people in the agriculture industry who want to access this
funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why cancel a program
useful to new entrants who want to access funding from other programs in your
department to grow the agrifoods industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Growing Forward program, Mr. Speaker, has injected more than $27 million
into the agriculture and agrifoods industry in this Province. What we have to do
is ensure sustainability. We have to look at supply, Mr. Speaker. We are doing
that, and we will be moving forward, hopefully with Growing Forward, too, at the
federal-provincial-territorial meetings in the Yukon in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, in the public consultations for the Strategy for
the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, we heard about the need for better
home support services so more people with disabilities can live and work in the
community. The final strategy only talks about disability-related supports with
no commitment to provide more home supports for independent living.

I ask the minister: How does she intend to ensure that the disability
strategy will improve home supports so that people with disabilities can live
independently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Disability Policy Office certainly did an extensive consultation across
the Province. We would like to see this Province emerge as a Province that
includes people, everyone in our Province, including people with disabilities.
If there are any specific government programs that can be enhanced or will be
enhanced on a go-forward basis, that will certainly be done by individual
departments as opposed to the Disability Policy Office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities should have the right to
live in the community with the appropriate supports. Adults with disabilities
should have the right to live independently outside their parent's homes.

I ask the minister: Will the disability strategy ensure that every person
with disabilities has access to supported independent living?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our inclusion strategy certainly lays out a framework, and we do agree and
feel that everyone should be included in their community, Mr. Speaker. Again,
the Disability Policy Office will assist government to make decisions and help
guide our policies; however, we will not be responsible for direct program
delivery as suggested by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked a question about whether the POMAX study was going to be
ready. This is June 6; I would like to ask the minister if the POMAX study is
ready to be made public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Cannot wait to get it.

Mr. Speaker, scientists are predicting that the Atlantic hurricane season
will see between nine to fifteen storms this season. There is a very real
possibility that one of these dangerous storms may affect Newfoundland and
Labrador region again.

What preparations and protocols are being put in place in the event of a
storm hitting the Province with impacts like Igor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We track a storm as it is being formed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the problems with Igor were problems with water runoff that caused so
much damage to road networks in the Province, particularly in the Burin and
Bonavista Peninsulas. One thing that some municipalities have suggested was
upgrading an enlargement of the culvert system along certain roadways.

Does the minister have confidence that the repairs it carried out will be
able to handle the effects from a storm such as the category of Igor again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: He is getting good. I will keep them coming.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities were asked to pass in emergency plans to the
Province by the end of May month. Can the minister tell the House and the people
of the Province what kind of response he received to the initiative and what
communities have been left out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: An excellent response, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I asked the Minister of
Justice whether he would table the peer review of the psyche services at HMP
before this session of the House closes, and he replied: I never said at
Estimates we would table the report of the review.

However, he did say in Estimates: It is difficult to put a timeline on it but
we would like to get it to you as soon as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice again, whether he will table the
report of this peer review before this session of the House closes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I cannot make a
commitment at this stage of the game if we will table the full report. It is a
very sensitive report. Peer reviews are not ordinarily made public.

Mr. Speaker, if there are recommendation in that review, then obviously they
would become public; but, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the timeline in receiving
that report, my answer is the same: We should have it very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act.
(Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The
Province. (Bill 36)

Also, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Municipalities Affairs Act. (Bill 35)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation,
Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, No. 2. (Bill 38)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 16, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question
in the House of Assembly requesting a detailed account of the activities of the
Fish Processing Licensing Board for the last two years; Mr. Speaker, I am more
than pleased to provide information here today.

As a category 3 entity under the Transparency and Accountability Act, the
Fish Processing Licensing Board is required to produce yearly activity reports.
These activity reports and activity plans for the board are also published on
the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Web site. Mr. Speaker, the 2011
Fish Processing Licensing Board Activity Report will be tabled in this House of
Assembly by June 29, 2012. At that time, it will be available for public release
and the hon. member will certainly be provided with a copy.

The mandate of the Fish Processing Licensing Board is to make recommendations
on all fish processing licensing proposals or requests made to the provincial
government. Only the routine renewal of fish processing licenses is exempt from
this process. In keeping with its mandate, the board's main objectives are to
assess and make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
regarding: first, licensing applications including applications for new
licences, change of operator and the consolidation and transfer of fish
processing licences; secondly, applications for the addition of new species to
existing fish processing licences, and where appropriate recommendations
regarding licences on a regional basis; third, corporate concentration, merger
and acquisition issues in the context of fish processing licensing matters; and
fourth, appeals to reinstate licences which have been cancelled as a result of
not meeting productivity activity requirements.

The Fish Processing Licensing Board, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for
reviewing and assessing all licence proposals or requests made to the provincial
government in accordance with the Fish Processing Licensing Board Act. To ensure
that interested members of the public have the opportunity to provide comments
to the board with respect to applications they have received, applicants must
advertise their intentions in both a generally circulated and a regional
newspaper.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Licensing and Quality Assurance
Division serves as a secretariat to the board. The duties and responsibilities
of the secretariat include but are not limited to: administrative functions, the
review of all applications, and the provision of background and other relevant
information to the board for use in its deliberations. Copies of all proposals
and requests submitted to the board are also provided to the minister.

The department's Fish Processing Licensing Policy Manual also guides the
board in making its recommendations. The record of recommendation is signed by
the chairperson or vice-chairperson of the board and then submitted to the
minister through the secretariat for review and for the rendering of a final
decision on licensing applications. The board's recommendations to the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture on all fish processing licensing proposals or
requests are made public, Mr. Speaker, as are the final decisions of the
minister.

To ensure equity and impartiality, all board members are appointed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Members of the board are selected with a
consideration of gender balance and regional distribution. Members are expected
to have a general knowledge of, but not a vested interested in, the fishing
industry.

During 2011, the terms of appointment for three of the board members expired,
Mr. Speaker. The outgoing board members were David Bonnell, Ida Powell, and
Shirley Shea. Prior to the expiration, the board was comprised of Ted Lewis as
chairperson, Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, Ms Ida Powell, Ms Shirley
Shea, and Mr. David Woodman. Returning board members include Ted Lewis as
chairperson and Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, and they have been joined
by three new members, Mr. Speaker. They include Clarence Brown, Violet Parsons,
and Clayton Welsh.

Mr. Speaker, the board supports our belief that decisions regarding fish
processing licences should be based on solid evaluation, not on politics.
Previous governments, unfortunately, have added to the overcapacity currently
present in the industry by not following that philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this information today. I look
forward to later in the month when the Activity Report of the Fish Processing
Licensing Board is released publicly, highlighting their important work in 2011.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Given this is Wednesday and Private Members' Day, the motion
is to be debated starting at 3:00 o'clock. We have twenty seconds left before
then. I suggest we move on to the Orders of the Day and debate the private
member's motion that rests in the name of the Member for Port de Grave.

I ask him to stand and introduce his motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following resolution on East-West
electricity corridors:

WHEREAS the federal government has tremendous power and leverage to lower
barriers between provinces and forge a path toward fairness and true community;
and

WHEREAS Quebec has frustrated Newfoundland and Labrador's attempts to wheel
electricity fairly through that Province; and

WHEREAS Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues have committed to
provide a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support to the Muskrat Falls
Project, which includes a sub-sea transmission link to the Maritimes, because it
has national or regional importance, it has economic and financial merit, and it
will significantly reduce greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister, in announcing funding for Ontario under the eco
Trust on March 6, 2007, said that province could choose to use its funding to
advance construction of "an East-West electrical transmission interconnect with
Manitoba, allowing for the importation of clean hydroelectric power"; and

WHEREAS on September 16, 2009, the Prime Minister announced funding for the
construction of the Northwest Transmission Line in northern British Columbia and
the prospect of connecting the line to Alaska; and

WHEREAS the opening of Canadian East-West energy corridors will give
provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within Canada, create
economic opportunity, and strengthen the country;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges all governments in
Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity
transmission corridors within Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has moved it, it is seconded by 

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for St. John's West, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to start today by saying it is a great honour to
stand here today and present this resolution to discuss the opportunity for
East-West transmission of electricity across the country.

Mr. Speaker, myself personally, my generation has grown up with this debate.
Be it one way or another, every Premier since I know I was in elementary school
 I can start out with the late Premier Smallwood; he tried it, he got a deal
for Churchill. The next time, it was Mr. Moores; he fought it. After Mr. Moores
was Mr. Peckford, he took it to the Supreme Court. After Mr. Peckford it was Mr.
Wells, he had a go at it, then Premier Tobin, and, Mr. Speaker, right up until
the last Premier, our former Premier, Premier Williams. Premier Williams, in
June, 2010, made a speech; he made a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, and
if I may, I would like to just read a couple of things out of it.

In the speech he talked about our Province has had a long-standing issue with
Quebec. It is about one of the province's actions purposely working to deny
economic progression of the whole of Eastern Canada, and that most definitely
includes Ontario. Mr. Speaker, once again, he was referring to the fact that for
all these years, for my fifty years, I would nearly say, or forty years, former
Premier Williams was referring to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador, no
matter by what means, has still not been able to transmit their potential
hydroelectric power through Quebec successfully.

So, Mr. Speaker, they had one more try at it. Nalcor and our Province went to
the Rιgie. The Rιgie basically is a regulatory body, much like our Public
Utility Board, if I understand it correctly. So they took it to the Rιgie.
Normally if someone takes a case to the Rιgie and wants a decision, it is
normally nine months  nine months, Mr. Speaker. In our case, the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador has endured a four-year  four-year  application
process in Quebec, a process, Mr. Speaker, that normally would take nine months.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is fair. We have made our arguments for years
that we have a great resource, but we can have all the great resource in the
world, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get it to market. Because of the lack of a
transmission line across this country, Mr. Speaker, and because of our lack of
being able to get an agreement in specifically with the Province of Quebec, we
have been stymied, literally stymied, in our attempts to do this.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I read with some interest an article in TheGlobe and Mail. It is an article from  excuse me if I do not do justice
to this gentleman's name  John Ibbitson. He had an article called: National
energy plan near impossible  but worth the effort. In this article the author
talks about the relationships that exist across the country, good and bad  some
good, some bad. He particularly, Mr. Speaker, talks about the recent meeting of
the Western Premiers, and he talks about the fact that "Alberta Premier Alison
Redford got the other Western premiers to agree last week to seek a common
strategy for harnessing and delivering energy across the country."

Mr. Speaker, we need the same agreement, but then he references, and I quote
once again, the relationship between "Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are
one step short of open hostilities ". He goes on to talk about various
relationships with various provinces. The eco Trust, as I just referenced in our
resolution, Mr. Speaker, allows transmission and an agreement between Manitoba
and Ontario. Manitoba and Ontario now, Manitoba is able to ship clean energy to
Ontario to help Ontario who is suffering and need the energy, Mr. Speaker. We
always hear tell of the concern the Ontario government has, particularly during
the summertime and peak periods in the summertime when all the air conditioners
are on, the humidity is on bust. What happens, Mr. Speaker? They do not know if
they have the power  they do not know if they have the power.

He also, Mr. Speaker, talks about interests and that we have a history in
this country of provinces and territories only serving their own interests. Mr.
Speaker, I think that can be argued and that has been going on for years.
Particularly in our relationship with the Province of Quebec, it has been in
their interest, Mr. Speaker, that we not be able to have a corridor through for
power. Mr. Speaker, he talks about that and that is an interesting point. In
that point, there are only three provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut
and Northwest Territories are the only jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, that are not
part of the national electricity system  only three: Nunavut, Newfoundland and
Labrador, and the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, outside of that in this particular article, he also talks about
challenges. Obviously challenges, Mr. Speaker, are partnerships, because it is
going to cost a lot of money to make this happen. We have to have corporations,
partners, provinces, territories, and our friends at the federal government
coming together to ensure that this happens. If that does not happen, Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid we will never have an East-West corridor in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a time in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are
blessed. We are truly blessed at this point in time in our history, Mr. Speaker,
to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are blessed why? Mr. Speaker,
right now we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources. Not only do
we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources, Mr. Speaker, we also
have an abundant supply of clean, renewable energy sources. The opportunities
for this Province have never been better  never been better, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, responsible development of these renewable
resources will give us the ability to have a clean, stable source of electricity
well into the future to meet all our domestic needs. Not only support our
domestic needs well into the future, Mr. Speaker, but also supply our industrial
needs well into the future. That is all within Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker, be it in Labrador or in Newfoundland. Not only will it give us that
opportunity, but it also will give us the ability to sell any excess power to
outside markets which will provide a source of revenue that could be used to
benefit our Province through long-term strategic investments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the central commitments in our provincial Energy Plan is
to reinvest the portion of our non-renewable energy money into our renewable
energy developments. Mr. Speaker, doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that make
sense to us, and doesn't that make sense to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, that while we are reaping some of the best benefits we have, the
resource we have now is non-renewable, so let's inject some of that
non-renewable money into planning for the future and giving us clean, green,
renewable energy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, along with having that, that will also
provide us the opportunity to seek and explore other opportunities, like wind 
and I have heard the Opposition parties talk about wind  and we need to explore
those, too. Mr. Speaker, by investing our non-renewable resources into the
renewable, we can do that again. That protects the environmental future for
every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, fulfilling this commitment is not only
beneficial to us. If we can fulfill this commitment, if we can do this, if we
can open up a resource, and if we can open up access to that East-West corridor,
Mr. Speaker, it is not only good for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; it is
good for our neighbouring friends in the Atlantic Provinces. The transmission
line will give them needed energy, something they have been crying out for, for
years. Not only our Atlantic friends, but the rest of the country; we can help
offset some of those energy demands that are now existing in Ontario. Not only
that, in our excess we can sell the rest to our North American friends and
beyond. Mr. Speaker, I think it makes perfect sense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take us back just a little bit to 2003. I want
everybody to recall the blackout that happened across the Northeastern United
States and central parts of our country. At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce
annual general meeting in 2010, they talked about this. The St. John's Board of
Trade brought a motion to the floor. Mr. Speaker, if we do not address this
East-West shortage, or the lack of a corridor, they say we will have another
blackout in twenty-five years. If we do not change something, Central Canada and
the Northeast States will continue to have blackouts every twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, they also talk about, in their resolution, and talked at that
time about having adequate power. We have the mighty Churchill, and we have the
power, but we do not have the way to access the markets. We can supply and we
can provide the adequate power. It is reliable power and it is clean power. It
can be there day in and day out. The river will always flow, Mr. Speaker.

As well, there is growing demand. We hear tell of the energy needs all across
our country; all across North America, there is a growing demand. Mr. Speaker, I
argue, and I will argue until the cows come home, probably, that
hydroelectricity is one of the cleanest, cheapest, and best ways to do that to
meet that demand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, as well, it lessens our country's dependence
on fossil fuels. Not that we do not need fossil fuels; fossil fuels have been
good to our country, and now they have been good to our Province, but it lessens
dependence on fossil fuels and lessens our carbon footprint. Mr. Speaker, as
well, we are at a time in our history where we have aging infrastructure and we
have to address that aging infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, as my time is winding down  and I will get another opportunity
to continue  I just want to end on this note. I want to end by encouraging all
parties today opposite to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I look forward
to the continued debate this afternoon in the House and I look forward to
closing debate a little later on this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a well-intended but not
a well-advised private member's resolution, for reasons that I will set forth.
What I see is this resolution is almost in the nature of somebody who wants
something so badly that they do not think of the consequences. It is almost as
if the member who is bringing on the private member's resolution is like King
Midas, who loved gold so much that he wanted everything he touched to be gold.
The first thing, his young daughter came in, and he held her, and she turned to
gold. She was lost to him forever, but he had what he said he wanted.

Mr. Speaker, by that I mean that this private member's resolution, in my
view, would give more power to the federal government than they currently have.
In no way would I agree that this federal government should have more power over
us than they currently have.

If you look at how Canada is constructed constitutionally, and if you look at
how Great Britain or the United Kingdom is constructed constitutionally, and if
you look at how the United States is constructed constitutionally, we have a
special place in constitutional law which separates the levels of government and
the power. The United Kingdom is a unitary state, so that means parliament is
supreme, one vote, one person, no matter where you live. This may have been in
the best of intentions, and there is a House of Lords, obviously; however, with
a unitary state, you have less opportunity for regional representation. That may
work in the UK, although it isolates other areas such as Northern Ireland,
Scotland, and Wales. They do not have the opportunity for any regional autonomy
or semi-autonomy, which is not the case in Canada.

The United States is exactly the opposite. The United States is a republic,
and in the United States their constitution is supreme. Their constitution also
separates state power from federal power, and you have certain anomalies in the
United States. State governments have criminal law, for example. In one state
you can commit an offence and be executed for it, and over the state line, that
may not even be an offence. In their evolution, when they set up their republic
and their constitution they gave certain areas of power to states, and states
jealously guard those powers. Their states, I would argue, have far less power
than our provinces, which for us is good. In Canada, criminal law is federal.
One law applies to a Canadian wherever you are, but the administration of that
is a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, my concern, constitutionally, with this private member's
resolution is that as soon as we approach the federal government and we
basically implore the federal government, we try to work with the federal
government so that we can have this East-West corridor  now, there are some
practical and business reasons that I do not think it is well-advised, and
certainly it would seem to contradict Muskrat Falls, in any event. However, when
we go to the federal government and we say to the federal government, we want
you to participate and impose an East-West corridor on Quebec or on any other
province, whatever we ask the federal government, and we give up sufficient
power that the federal government is able to impose something on that other
province, then, by default, that federal government can also impose that outcome
on us.

For example, today, do we want to provide more power to the federal
government than the federal government currently has? We can see the big
argument, the big debate recently over search and rescue and it being a federal
responsibility. We can see it even in this House today with DFO giving up
certain responsibilities and leaving the Province to fend for ourselves.

We also see in the new EI legislation, federal income taxes imposed across
the board, the GST was imposed across the board. The more power that we give to
the federal government the more we diminish ourselves as a Province. By
diminishing ourselves as a Province, we have less autonomy, we have less power,
and we have less opportunity to determine our own destinies within Canada.

In Canada, the system is neither republic nor a unitary state, as the United
States or Great Britain. In Canada we have a federation of provinces. All
provinces stand equal. Our federation of provinces  we do have a Constitution.
Although Parliament is supreme, we have also entrenched certain benefits, powers
and advantages. For example, even though this Province has only 500,000 people,
and Canada now has 35 million, percentage wise we have declined significantly,
but we are still guaranteed seven federal seats and six seats in the Senate. By
the numbers, this far outweighs our population. We have more power  your vote
is worth more in this Province than it would be in many other provinces in a
federal election. We have certain advantages in Canada and I see no reason why
we would want to implore the feds, as this private member's resolution seems to
do.

To give you an example of how misguided the federal government can be. In
1980, when Alberta was profiting substantially from oil  they had not yet had
the oil fights and the oil wars  there were two very large provinces, Ontario
and Quebec, and they are still very large provinces. At that time they
controlled as much as two-thirds of Canada. The very misguided, in my view,
federal Liberal government at that time, imposed the National Energy Program.
The National Energy Program, in a short stroke, said that any energy sold from
Canada had to be offered to Canadians at 75 per cent of the world price.
Clearly, Alberta was the energy producer and exporter, as we are today, even
though much of ours is offshore, there may yet come a time when we have more
onshore energy. Alberta was going to be penalized to benefit Ontario and Quebec
to the extent of losing 25 per cent of the value of their non-renewable
resource. Do we want to give that kind of power to the federal government in
seeking an energy corridor be imposed upon Quebec?

The net loss to the Alberta treasury, as calculated by Albertans, since then
has been in the order of $56 billion to $60 billion over a very short period of
time. I am told, and having lived in Alberta I can believe it, that within
forty-eight hours there were 600 drilling rigs lined up at the Montana border to
leave Alberta and leave Canada because of a too powerful and misguided federal
government.

I do not see how we can ask the federal government to impose on Quebec, for
our benefit, an East-West energy corridor. Constitutionally that is the reason,
and politically the reason, why we ought not to have this type of a private
member's resolution. There are also other very good policy reasons.

Nalcor, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the provincial governing party
are attempting to convince us that we need to have a bypass around Quebec with
Muskrat Falls. The bypass that is anticipated around Quebec is traditionally
called the Anglo-Saxon route and is to come across Labrador, across the Strait
of Belle Isle, down through our Province, across the Cabot Strait, on down
through, and potentially hook up with the United States energy grid. Mr.
Speaker, that potentially could be a very good thing; however, if we have the
power corridor through Quebec and imposed upon Quebec, why do we need Muskrat
Falls? Doesn't it simply defeat the argument the government is trying to make?
The government is saying on the one hand we need Muskrat Falls so we can get
around Quebec and we can access markets. Now we have a private member's
resolution that says: Implore the federal government to force Quebec to give us
an energy corridor. Obviously, if we have that, the reasoning and the rationale
for the link, certainly across from this Island to Nova Scotia, would be
unnecessary and would, in my view, make Muskrat Falls redundant.

Simply put, the argument being advanced for the reason for this imposed
energy corridor is exactly the reason we say we want Muskrat Falls. We are
seeking, we say, an East-West link. In fact, what we are asking for is really a
North-South link where we would be able to ship energy through the Province of
Quebec to some place else. If we build Muskrat Falls and access other markets,
then the energy corridor becomes redundant. If we have the energy corridor, then
why are we going to commit our public Treasury to billions and billions of
dollars 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT:  that may take fifty years to pay off?

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can be in the interest of this Province to
give up any of our autonomy to the federal government. What the federal
government can do for you it can also do to you, as we have been learning in the
last year or so. I do not see any reason why we would want an energy corridor
when the argument on the other side that the government is making right now is
that we should build Muskrat Falls.

Without speculating on whether Muskrat Falls is the right move or not,
clearly if we have the energy corridor we do not need Muskrat Falls any more. We
can simply use our own energy self-sufficiency here. We can use cash from the
energy corridor that we force through Quebec in order to create more energy on
the Island and through coastal Labrador. So, the private member's resolution,
while it seems to be well intended, is misguided  is misguided on
constitutional grounds, is misguided on political grounds by we will give up
more political power to somebody outside of us, that somebody being the federal,
and it is misguided on economic grounds.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find that I am unable to support this private member's
resolution.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this private member's motion has arisen as a result of recent
discussions on a national energy plan between the Premiers of Alberta and
Ontario. Our position is quite simple: How can their be a national energy plan,
when one province  Quebec  has treated another province  Newfoundland and
Labrador  with contempt and disdain since 1969, and continues to hold us
hostage to this very day, Mr. Speaker? What we are suggesting to governments
throughout this country, including provincial governments and the federal
government, is that you should support the East-West corridor. For many reasons,
Mr. Speaker, both from an economic, environmental, but also as a nation-building
process.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very good analysis as to the role of the federal
government and the abdication of responsibility in an article  a 1999 article
by Jason Churchill called Pragmatic Federalism: The Politics Behind the 1969
Churchill Falls Contract. Mr. Churchill points out on page 215 that one of
the key issues was the "inability to secure a power corridor across Quebec
territory", and we lost a tremendous negotiating advantage that had been
geographically allocated to Quebec. They had used this leverage, Mr. Speaker, to
basically secure the onerous terms of the 1969 contract. At page 216, Mr.
Churchill stated that the refusal of successive federal governments to intervene
was "tantamount to capitulation to Quebec's interest." So, Mr. Speaker, again,
that is the political pragmatism  more votes in Quebec than there are in
Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we see a glimmer of hope that this can change, and I am
very disappointed that the Member for St. Barbe has chosen not to support this
motion, Mr. Speaker. I know he does not want to be seen as choosing Quebec over
Newfoundland and Labrador, but the reality here is that when you stand up and
say in this House of Assembly that this should not change, then what you are
saying is that the Upper Churchill contract should not change either, and that
is simply exactly unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, to understand this you have to examine history. You have to go
back to the 1927 decision of the Judicial Privy Council whereby the highest
court in Canada at the time, being situated in the United Kingdom, decided that
Newfoundland owned Labrador, and not Canada or Quebec. In the 1940s there was
one report done, and in 1963 there was a Dorion report which investigated the
1927 decision and basically held that, by their lack of objection, Mr. Speaker,
or their silence, had acquiesced the decision. The Judicial Council decision was
entrenched in the 1949 act that brought Newfoundland into Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, what we have and what continues to happen to this day is what is
referred to as the revenge of geography, that we have been landlocked as a
result of Quebec's intransigence, Quebec's unfairness, and Quebec's inequitable
treatment of a supposed partner in Confederation, Mr. Speaker.

In 1962, Premier Diefenbaker proposed the establishment of an integrated
national electrical system, and that is referred to by Mr. Churchill. In 1963,
Mr. Speaker, Premier Jean Lesage at that time told the Quebec Assembly that
Churchill Falls was linked to the boundary dispute. Another article which
examines this issue is the Feehan and Baker article in 2005; although they deal
with the renewal clause, they also point out that the issues surround the
boundary dispute, Quebec is opposed to any attempt to transfer power over their
territory without their approval, the federal government was not anxious to
confront Quebec over this issue. Well, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, that approach has
changed.

One of the best descriptions I can see, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot attribute
where I got this source from, but I have a lot of writings on the Upper
Churchill, and it is a great quote. I see one of our learned doctors present in
the gallery who will appreciate this quote: For the historian trying to make
sense of the events and forces which led to the 1969 contract, the boundary
talks between Smallwood and Lesage cling to the Hamilton Falls negotiations like
a shadow, though nearly invisible at the time, but inextricably attached.

Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations in 1963 to 1965 and there was a
tentative boundary settlement that blew up, because what happened around 1962,
Renι Lιvesque  at least in 1962 he was the Minister of Natural Resources in
Quebec; what Mr. Lιvesque saw, Mr. Speaker, was the development or the vision
for Quebec's future and what is sometimes referred to as the development of
hydro-nationalism. He took Shawinigan Power, Montreal Power, took a number of
different power companies, nationalized them, and Quebec Hydro was born, Mr.
Speaker.

Quebec Hydro was born out of these various companies. It was born to look
after the needs of Quebec. That is exactly what we have tried to do, Mr.
Speaker, with the creation of Nalcor, because what Mr. Lιvesque saw back in the
early 1960s was that hydro was the key to Quebec's future prosperity. How true
that has been, Mr. Speaker, and how unfair it is.

There was an article recently, I think, in the National Post, which
referred to the fact that Manitoba and Quebec, because of the way they get their
hydro, it is not included in their equalization payments. Quebec has the lowest
child care in this Province, it has the lowest tuition in this country, excuse
me, Mr. Speaker, and essentially they get about $18 billion in equalization as a
result of that. Mr. Speaker, Quebec on the one hand is a very rich province
using our power to pay for their child care and education. On the other hand,
Mr. Speaker, they get massive amounts of equalization and always look for more.

Mr. Speaker, it was these kinds of disputes which led to Premier Smallwood's
investigation of the Anglo-Saxon route on November 28, 1964, which would allow
Newfoundland at the time, Mr. Speaker, to escape the clutches of Quebec. Here we
are, almost fifty years later, still trying to escape the clutches of Quebec.
Muskrat Falls will do that, Mr. Speaker, but more importantly, an East-West
electricity grid will allow for the transmission of electricity and the
development of Gull Island to get our power into Ontario, into the Maritime
Provinces, and into the Northeastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have been to the Supreme Court of Canada on
two occasions: on September 28, 1982 when the Water Rights Reversion Act
reference was heard; on March 23, 1984, Mr. Speaker, while that case was
ongoing, Quebec submitted a proposal to Newfoundland and Premier Peckford at the
time said no.

Mr. Speaker, May 3, 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada said that our actions
as a Province were unconstitutional and Renι Lιvesque was now the Premier of
Quebec. Mr. Speaker, Premier Peckford refused to have any further discussions
with Quebec and he said that the solution to the dispute now lies with the
election of a Conservative government in Ottawa. Here we are thirty years later
still looking for that solution, Mr. Speaker, to develop our natural resources
for which the people of our Province will be the primary beneficiaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is one province and a federal government that
refuses to allow that to come true. June of 1988, we went back to the Supreme
Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and lost again. In recent years, Nalcor or Hydro
has gone to the Rιgie in Quebec trying to apply FERC rules and open access
rules, all to no avail. I think I was present at a speech where former Premier
Williams just said that in his forty years as a lawyer, the worst decision he
had ever seen was the Rιgie decision in terms of being factually inaccurate and
simply outlandish.

So, Mr. Speaker, we start again. Now we go to the good faith action which
CF(L)Co currently has. It is important to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the good
faith action is not looking to say the contract is null and void. It is not
saying return power to this Province. What the good faith action does, Mr.
Speaker, is based on the civil law of Quebec, and one of the most basic mistakes
made in this contract was that it was governed by the law of Quebec. We are now
trying to use the civil law of Quebec to get a more equitable treatment. The
basis of the action, Mr. Speaker, is that on good faith in civil law, the French
law, there is a moral or maybe, we are arguing, a legal obligation to
renegotiate a contract where circumstances changed that could not have been
foreseen at the time the contract was entered into.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker? That cheap power that Quebec got in 1967 or
1969, which could be justified by some people, becomes cheaper in 2017. How, Mr.
Speaker, can anyone tell me that that is fair? Yes, there was a contract entered
into. Mr. Speaker, when you benefit to the extent that Quebec has benefited from
this contract, surely there comes a point in time when equity and fairness in a
national federation demand reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker, while the opening of an East-West corridor will not undo the
wrongs of the past, it will allow optimism for the future. It will allow for the
development of our natural resources for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It will allow for the transmission of power across Quebec without
having to go on bended knee to Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to happen
without intervention or negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? In utilities years, 2041 is not that far
away. To most of us, we may not  what year is this? Some of us, I guess, will
be around to benefit from it, but our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.
The Upper Churchill contract still has the agreement. CF(L)Co is divided up
between 65 per cent Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor and 35 per cent
Quebec Hydro. There are still issues in 2041.

Mr. Speaker, at some point Quebec will have to discuss, I would assume, the
renegotiation of that contract and the development of Gull Island. We are not
asking for anything outlandish. We are simply saying we want to develop our
resources for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

In a federation like Canada where you have a federal government, a central
government, and you have a number of provinces, Mr. Speaker, surely the federal
government at some point will say to the Province: Please get together and work
this out. Mr. Speaker, that 1927 decision hangs like a shadow. We still see maps
today, Mr. Speaker, with the old maps as put forward by Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, the present political pragmatism will be based on
fairness and equality and not simply getting votes in one province. That is what
this motion is about, Mr. Speaker, because we have seen signs from this federal
government that perhaps they are willing to go there. We have seen a commitment
from the Prime Minister on the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, on the basis
that it is a regional economic benefit.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered through tough times, but
we are people who can endure tough times. For 500 years we have lived on an
Island that has been inhospitable and very tough, but we are still here, Mr.
Speaker. In the last number of years times have gotten better but we have to
manage our own resources, Mr. Speaker. We have to encourage businesses, big
companies, oil companies, to come in here and do business. Mr. Speaker, it has
to be based on fairness, and there has to be one guiding principle, that
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are to be the principal beneficiaries of our
natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with one of the greatest hydro developments in North
America right now that we cannot get to market in terms of Gull Island because
an intransigent province can simply say no. Mr. Speaker, what this East-West
corridor will do, will allow for the development of Gull Island. I think when
you see some of these Labrador mining developments, depending on the economy of
China, but if they all go ahead, Mr. Speaker, then Gull Island can be a very
real possibility.

Do you know something else that I read last night as I was preparing for
this, Mr. Speaker? There are a lot of big aluminium plants in Quebec, and those
big aluminium plants require a lot of power, 400, 500, 600 megawatts of power.
Three of them, Mr. Speaker, I read last night, their contracts expire before
2041. Now, Mr. Speaker, in business there appears to be no great loyalty. The
question is who will give us the best deal? Newfoundland and Labrador will be
there to do deals but those deals will be fair.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this resolution is encouraging the
governments who are discussing a national energy plan to put forward the need
for it to be truly national, because otherwise it becomes regional. What we are
also suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for everyone to come into the
twenty-first century. It is time for Quebec to get over the 1927 decision. We
have had to get over the 1969 contract. It is still, Mr. Speaker, like an open
sore at times, but what inflames us even more is that Quebec makes all the money
from our natural resources. This will go, Mr. Speaker, a small part of the way
towards saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you truly are
members of this great Confederation and we want to treat you fairly. Because
that is all we have asked for, Mr. Speaker, is fairness and to be the
beneficiaries of our natural resources.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased actually to stand and speak to this private member's
resolution today. I think it is an important resolution. I am certainly going to
be happy to vote for this resolution.

It has always been important to the NDP, both as a provincial party and
federally, to look at the whole issue of an East-West grid. One thing that is
really important about this resolution, and the Minister of Natural Resources
has just alluded to it, and that is the importance of all provinces and all
territories to be concerned about the federation that we are part of and to
strengthening that federation. If there is anything that can help us in working
together and strengthening who we are as the federation of Canada, then it would
be through trying to develop the East-West grid because the East-West grid would
be the federal level along with the provincial and territorial levels working
together. It would become a responsibility not just of two provinces looking at
each other, but of the whole country and the role of those provinces in the
whole country.

The first time that we actually came out as a party with regard to the
East-West grid was in our platform during the 2003 provincial election campaign.
It was a major part of our platform. Then on a federal level in 2004, just after
Jack Layton became the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, he supported
the Kyoto Protocol that dealt with climate change. The most important parts of
the federal policy document that was part of that support for Kyoto was a pledge
to establish an East-West power grid.

At that time, Mr. Layton was looking specifically at Quebec and Manitoba and
the role that they could play with regard to coal dependent provinces. The scene
has changed a bit in Canada now and with the role that we are playing as
Newfoundland and Labrador, we obviously have a significant role to play in the
development of an East-West grid as well. It is all of our responsibilities, not
just the responsibility of one province or two provinces. It is all of our
responsibility to try to help with climate change.

The things that were in Kyoto, which unfortunately we know have been rejected
by the Harper Government, but recommendations of Kyoto and agreements that were
agreed to within Kyoto would have seen us working not just as separate entities
in this country, but working together to reduce, for example, the coal-dependent
energy sources that are rampant in the country. We do have a responsibility to
do that. I am very happy that we are here today trying to get all of us, and it
looks like it will be all of us, agreeing that this is a good way to go.

During 2006 when there were energy plan consultations, again at that time we
advocated the East-West grid. Back in 2008, Mr. Jack Layton, who was then the
Leader of the New Democratic Party federally, said to Danny Williams, at the
time of the 2008 election when Danny Williams was the Premier of the Province,
that New Democrats will continue to push for the development of a national power
grid for electricity, increasing Canada's energy security and facilitating
development and distribution of renewable energy to provinces currently
dependent on fossil fuel. It would also give hydro-producing provinces like
Newfoundland and Labrador access to energy markets, to maximize benefits. I
think it is much better that, as a Province, we are looking to maximizing the
benefits for the rest of the people in Canada as well as for ourselves. The
markets we should be gaining access to are the markets in our own country, which
is extremely important.

In 2011, you had some provinces working together, because Manitoba signed an
energy Memorandum of Understanding with Saskatchewan that says the two provinces
will work together to enhance the East-West grid and increase energy transfers
between provinces. So we do know that provinces out there support the notion of
the East-West grid, and provinces as far west as Saskatchewan.

I would imagine, having heard some of the comments I have heard the new
Premier of British Columbia say recently, that the desire to create the
East-West grid would go all the way from Newfoundland and Labrador right over to
British Columbia. I do not think we would find it difficult to get support from
other provinces with regard to this, so that is why the main resolution is so
important, that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to
co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission
corridors within Canada.

I guess my interest, Mr. Speaker, would be that besides coming to an
agreement today, as the three parties here in our House of Assembly, besides
coming to an agreement that it is good to do that, that then we have to count on
the government side of the House, who is putting the resolution forward, that we
have to depend on them to then start bringing this issue to the table at the
federal, provincial, and territorial levels  and I guess that would happen
probably through the Premier. It obviously would happen through the Minister of
Natural Resources as well. It is also something I think that could happen
through the Department of Justice, because you have legal ramifications here
also.

So, there are many opportunities that will be coming forward, which could be
opportunities which can be used by the government to bring forward this notion
of the East-West power grid in Canada. As I said, there are so many aspects to
it which are positive. One is the environmental aspect, because we do have
places in Canada which have cleaner sources of energy than others. We also have
places in Canada which are doing real gains in some of the alternative sources
of energy, for example, wind power. In Nova Scotia, they are upping their use of
wind power. They are actually even building turbines in Nova Scotia. They are
upping their use of wind power in New Brunswick as well. So, there is a lot to
learn from each other across the country, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what is
going on around energy, and how we can really improve who we are as a country.

I think the East-West grid is good for us, because the US energy market,
which is one of the markets that the government has been looking at, is actually
becoming very volatile now, especially due to the shale gas emergence. So, I am
really pleased for us to be talking about developing our own country, rather
than looking south. I think it is important that we co-operate with countries
south of us  and there are more countries south of us than the US, but of
course they are the ones that we are right on the border with. We have to do
that with strength, and I think the strength we do it with is not just as one
province, but together as a country, because they are really doing a lot in the
US to develop who they are and to start planning regionally and working together
regionally.

The volatile energy market in the States is very concerning. Because if we
put our eggs in that basket, the basket of the US market which is partially part
of the discussion around Muskrat Falls, then I think even if we are talking the
spot market, it could become very problematic for us. If we are depending on
that market which is changing so radically, we have no idea what it is going to
be like in ten years. The thing of depending on ourselves and developing who we
are is extremely important.

This position has been taken by the way, by a very important group of people,
the Canadian Academy of Engineering. They have made some points on why an
East-West grid would be very good for Canada. When you get a body like that, the
Canadian Academy of Engineering, I think it is somebody to listen to. According
to the Canadian Academy of Engineering, a substantial amount of Canada's power
potential is stranded. That has been part of the frustration of many governments
in this Province. It is stranded because we do not have an East-West grid. We
know there is a lot that we can do here with wind power, for example, if our
wind power could be moved off the Island. One of the things said to us is in
order to have wind power, we need to be able to transport it because we have not
enough use for it here on the Island. The thing is that if we are looking at
transporting with the possibility of Muskrat Falls, well wind power could be
transported also. This is something that we need to do.

We cannot do it without the East-West grid. It will not make any sense
depending on the US market doing it to get wind power out of here. If we
depended on an East-West grid, then it makes a tremendous amount of sense.
According to the academy, without a strong East-West grid, we are squandering a
key competitive advantage. If we as a country were consolidated and we were
together in the production of energy, then that would put us in a real strong
position with the United States. We would actually become competitive with them
in the whole area of energy production.

The thing around having the East-West grid in our own country would mimic
what is happening in other countries. Here, for example, on this side of the
planet, in South America, they are actively investigating inter-country grids;
one country combining with another country, their grids working together. Other
places are developing integrated grids, where different sources of energy are
all being integrated into a grid. The US, as I mentioned a minute ago, is
investigating several inter-regional grids. So they would have different grids
around the country on a regional level and these grids would work with each
other. There is a lot of work going on in other countries and in other areas
with regard to building larger grids and having co-operation between grids and
among grids.

Unfortunately, the economic downturn on a global level has led to a downturn
with regard to global plans to build infrastructure. There has been a slowdown,
not in the idea but being able to carry it through with regard to infrastructure
because of the economic downturn. A point to make here is that getting into
creating an East-West grid and really putting energy in that and to the
infrastructure that we need to be developed would actually be good for our
economy in Canada. It would be a very positive economic turn. Because of the
development of the infrastructure, that in it self would strengthen our economy
in this country. We need to look at the fact that it is the provinces that have
to drive this. If something is going to happen we have to be the ones as
provinces coming together and agreeing together and then going to Ottawa and
saying this is what we have to do, because of course electricity generation and
transmission is a provincial responsibility.

The other thing that we have to do, and we have to do this in our Province as
well as the other provinces, we have to engage the involvement of the Aboriginal
communities and First Nations. We have Aboriginal communities and First Nation
communities that are self governing, and they have a key role to play. We would
need to get the full support of Aboriginal communities and First Nation
communities in getting this to happen. We would have to have that happen too, on
both sides of the border. That is more complicated. We can only be concerned
about what we have control over. The Canadian Academy of Engineering, of course,
has a Pan-American vision, I think, and they see the importance of the
involvement of the Aboriginal groups.

One of the things that we will have to deal with is that there are
conflicting goals. Right now we have a conflicting goal with us and one
province. Certainly, regionally there will be conflicting goals too, but they
can be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, all of that to say, this is something really good to work on. It
is obviously something that is long term but it is something that we would have
to start working on right away. As I said in the beginning, I think it is
something that the government will have to drive. They are the ones who take
part in the meetings on the federal, territorial and provincial levels. They are
the ones who are going to have to bring forth this idea. What I call upon the
government is to be accountable to the House of Assembly when we pass this
resolution today, because obviously, we are going to pass it, to be accountable
to us for the way in which they are going to bring this forward in the
discussions that they have in an ongoing manner on the various levels of our
governments here in our country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to speak today on this resolution put
forward by the Member for Port de Grave. It is a resolution that looks at
something that is certainly well needed in terms of development of our Province.
As the Minister of Natural Resources said, it goes to nation building. An
East-West electricity transmission line, in terms of our future development and
where we need to go as a Province, is certainly where we need to go as a
country, and east to west in terms of developing that link. Certainly from a
need perspective and from a business and economic perspective, Mr. Speaker, and
how we need to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in the actual resolution that I would like to
specifically speak to, in referencing the opening of Canadian east-west energy
corridors and giving provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within
Canada, create economic opportunity and strengthen the country. That is what we
are talking about here. I think it was mentioned earlier too, we cannot look to
undo the wrongs of the past but we can certainly control our destiny in where we
move forward as a Province and as a country with an East-West transmission grid.
That is so important. That is the resolution, a very important component to it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I just wanted to comment on, certainly from my
department and our government's perspective in terms of the opportunity for
business and economic development as we move forward and advocate to all the
provinces and the territories in terms of coming onboard and supporting an
East-West electrical transmission grid, Mr. Speaker. We are known as the
Province, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador vast energy resources has
allowed our government to strengthen our financial position, reduce our debt,
reduce taxes, and contribute to the programs that support economic growth in all
regions of our Province. Harnessing these riches provides exciting and rewarding
spinoff opportunities for the business community, and it is helping small and
medium companies tap into supplier development opportunities that are leading to
greater success and company expansion.

Mr. Speaker, business success increases the tax base for the provincial
government and it increases the volume of spending in a community, in a region,
and in our Province. The sum of that activity helps fuel social programs and
infrastructure improvements.

Economic development, Mr. Speaker, as we know, and entrepreneurship  small
and medium-sized businesses, the corporations out there, those are the ones that
drive our economy. They hire people, they pay taxes, they build our communities.
Through that, we collect taxes and revenue, the provincial government does, to
provide those social programs that are so important to all our people and to all
regions of the Province. We need economic activity to drive that, Mr. Speaker,
as we know.

Export activity leading to one in every four jobs in the Province has
surpassed $12 billion last year. It is no surprise that the government, we have
taken such a focused effort on building Newfoundland and Labrador's trade
capacity. Energy would just be another component to that, Mr. Speaker.

We are committed and we have been a partner in supporting conditions where
businesses can excel, wherever that may be and whatever industry that may be,
Mr. Speaker. Our efforts in that area are looking at, as I said, solidifying
supplier development opportunities and maximizing their potential for the
benefit of all local businesses, which is so important. Supporting business to
maximize benefits from our local resources like green energy, hydro development,
we have seen it and we continue to improve on that, Mr. Speaker; we can through
an opportunity like this, where it allows for future development in Labrador as
we move forward with this transmission line.

We need to look at the opportunities identified for products like energy. We
anticipate greater market access. That will improve companies undertaking
expansion and more companies to expand their workforce. By all of that, through
hydro development, through the East-West transmission line, we are looking at
economic development, various projects. We have Muskrat Falls now that we will
make a decision on later in the year. Phase 2 of that development would be Gull
Island and the opportunities that will hold to that and make that much more
attainable with that agreed-upon transmission across the country from east to
west.

That is what we look forward to in the future as we move this agenda forward
and that is what the resolution asks this hon. House to do: to support that, to
call on the members of the federation of Canada to support this as we move
forward, from a nation-building point of view and from Newfoundland and
Labrador's point of view as well, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke of the Supplier Development Program which flows from significant
projects, small and medium enterprises. It is a great opportunity for local
business communities in all regions to learn about the process of the public
sector, companies, and how to interact with purchasing representatives. So, when
you consider, Mr. Speaker, the requirements of large procurers of goods and
services on industrial projects, various levels of government spend billions of
dollars annually, and supplier development certainly represents an exciting,
rewarding opportunity for businesses.

So, Mr. Speaker, looking at the economic benefits from an East-West grid and
what this actual resolution is calling for, you might ask: well, what would it
accomplish? Where would we be? Well, first and foremost, you certainly look at
linking each and province and territory to a national electricity grid.
Newfoundland, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon are now not part of that
national electricity system, and all other provinces would like to see greater
inter-provincial connections east and west. So that is the key: we get connected
up, and we have those opportunities that exist, especially for us in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly have that access to energy for future
development that we can access that transmission, Mr. Speaker.

What would an East-West grid provide? It would increase the amount of
electricity that is accessible in Canada. You could certainly look at it from a
trade perspective. Most of our electricity right now is from north to south; it
has been traditionally that way, dominated by electricity sale to the United
States. No doubt US markets receive a greater benefit from Canada of low-cost
hydroelectric exports from places like BC, Manitoba, Quebec, and certainly the
rest of Canada.

A national electricity grid will improve system reliability, which means
greater economic output and benefits for all Canadians, and that is the key, as
I said. It is nation-building, and it is looking at a national transmission grid
from east to west for all Canadians, and certainly a great benefit to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Let us talk about trade, in terms of the trade and the benefits it would
provide in that regard: increased access to large- and small-scale renewable
electricity sources across the country and reducing emissions and reliance on
fuel generation of fossil fuels; we know the country as a whole, and certainly
the world, want to get the green energy, and we can certainly be leaders in that
area and continue to be leaders, Mr. Speaker. We would enhance the country's
electricity infrastructure and generate significant capital investment. When you
talk about economic development, or you talk about helping communities and
regions, economic development is all about capital investment; one follows the
other.

It is a great opportunity, in terms of support for this resolution, an
East-West grid and what that would mean in terms of capital investment and
future enhancement and development of hydroelectric resources, certainly in
Labrador. The benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador, it unlocks Newfoundland's
clean energy and renewable power resources and maximizes the reach of Canada's
energy supply by linking Newfoundland to areas with demand for electricity.

So, this allows us to reach out, invest that capital, certainly in the
private sector, develop the resources we have, and then access that need that is
out there, that demand that is out there. We can meet that demand by flowing
that electricity into Quebec, into Ontario, and all parts west that is needed,
Mr. Speaker, to that market.

This provides the opportunity as I said, too, to look at a Phase II, beyond
Muskrat Falls, and looks at the development of the Gull Island Project and
allows us to get access to markets. It is a huge benefit in terms of our
development as a Province in building on our Energy Plan that we announced in
2007, to be an energy warehouse. This would be a continuation and well on the
road to implementing that plan to reach this phase.

Phase II of the Lower Churchill Project development will consist of the
development of a Gull Island generation facility and associated transmission to
markets, Mr. Speaker. The development would begin maybe three or four years
after Muskrat Falls and approximately would take six to eight years. Such
benefits through a project like this certainly creates significant employment,
income and taxation benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, but not only
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, this would be a national project. It
would be for all of Canada as I said before. It is certainly nation building in
terms of what this resolution speaks to.

Economic impacts including employment, income and taxation benefits; I spoke
before about economic developments, capital investment. It allows government to
collect revenues that we can provide those programs, those social programs, to
our citizens. We need to get that economic driver to do this. This provides a
need in the country in terms of clean energy. It also provides significant
economic development and inputs into our economy both at a provincial and
certainly at a federal level as well.

There is also direct, certainly indirect, and induced benefits from a project
like this, Mr. Speaker. Direct benefits look at including engineering and
construction activities. One of the members mentioned regarding the erection of
transmission lines or operating heavy equipment on site, those types of things,
on-the-ground projects, capital investment, and those things that drive our
economy. Indirect impacts are associated with material, services, and equipment
purchased by the project and the workers involved with fabrication of equipment.
Again, I talked about local suppliers and supplier locations around the project.
It is huge for small and medium enterprises and small businesses, Mr. Speaker.
Induced impacts are those that occur in the services sector. Throughout the
economy direct and certainly indirect income is spent. I get back again to
supplier development. The services and goods that are required for such a
project are fast and would drive local economies, again which is so important.

The benefit strategy between Nalcor and the provincial government ensures the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the primary beneficiaries of the
Lower Churchill Project. Estimates direct, indirect, and induced employment in
the Province would be estimated to be in excess of 18,000 person years. Direct
employment in Newfoundland and Labrador would peak at approximately 2,200
people.

Something like this, Mr. Speaker, with the East-West grid allows opportunity
for development of Gull Island and continues in terms of our 2007, in terms of
our Energy Plan to be an energy warehouse and be able to meet the electrical
demands that exist in Canada. We can meet that through having access to that
grid and then following through that in terms of development of a project like
Gull Island, Mr. Speaker.

This is for Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Canada  in all of Canada.
In Labrador again, the benefits agreements would make sure that qualified
residents of Labrador would get first priority over other parts of the country,
looking at almost 10,000 person years of direct, indirect, and induced
employment to take place in Labrador. Again, an estimated 115 direct full-time
jobs from Phase I which would be Muskrat Falls and Phase II of approximately
seventy in Labrador.

The benefits would be immense. More than 75 per cent of direct labour for
Gull Island generation station facility would be undertaken in Labrador.
Approximately $440 million in income to business and labour would be earned by
Labradorians and Labradorian-based businesses. It is significant, Mr. Speaker,
in terms of having access to that East-West grid and having our counterparts,
the provinces and territories, support this and lobby the federal government so
that we can get there and continue our progress in the Province and across the
country. As I said, the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Atlantic
Canada as well as employment, overall income, taxation for the Atlantic
Provinces as well, and for Canada as a whole. It is extremely important in terms
of what this would mean for our Province.

Mr. Speaker, my time is clueing up, but this resolution, I want to recognize
the Member for Port de Grave. It is timely in terms of where we are to in our
history as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is timely in the sense of
what the need is and the demand is in Canada in terms of access to clean energy


SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS: People are getting away and jurisdictions are getting away
from fossil fuels. We have the assets now in terms of natural resources to be
part of that wave of new energy that we have, that we can access to the rest of
the country.

I implore the members of the House here to support this resolution and we go
forward and advocate to the rest of the country that we get this East-West
electrical transmission grid in place for the good of the country, the good of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and most importantly for the good of all the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright  L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to make a few comments with regard to the resolution that
was put forward by the Member for Port de Grave today. Mr. Speaker, it is an
interesting resolution, no doubt. It talks about urging all governments in the
country to co-operate and look at the opportunities of having an East-West
electricity transmission corridor within Canada.

If you look at the report that was recently done by the Howe Institute 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES:  or, in fact, not recently. It was done, I think, back in
2010. Basically, what they focused on was the East-West grid and having Canada
with its own electricity corridor. One of the things they noted there is that it
would benefit from increased inter-provincial trade in electricity, which as we
all know will result in increased integration among existing provincial
electricity systems.

It is not just about the country having control. I do not see it that way.
What I do see is that the provinces would make this happen through this grid
system and it would be a national grid. Mr. Speaker, the provinces can establish
different mechanisms to allocate inter-provincial transmission capacity such
that no other party can monopolize it. That is the experience we have had in
Newfoundland and Labrador in trying to develop major projects like the Lower
Churchill and being able to have access through other provinces. That has been a
huge factor for us in being able to move forward with development of electricity
in this Province.

Because the Province of Quebec has continued to, Mr. Speaker, be unwilling to
negotiate fair agreements for the transmission of power for Newfoundland and
Labrador, we have had no other choice but to stalemate a number of deals and
negotiations over the years around electricity and the development of
electricity in Labrador. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have landed ourselves in
the courts. The recent decision of the Rιgie board, going back two years ago in
Quebec, when they passed down that ruling in the courts, was not in our favour
at all. Since then we have to appeal it through the courts. Our hearings are not
even going to be heard until 2013 as to what our stand is going to be in
accessing power through Quebec or not.

Mr. Speaker, there also needs to be an equitable distribution of the economic
benefits of all interprovincial trade between provinces. In order for that to
happen, again, there needs to be some kind of a corridor, grid system, or
regulatory process that allows for that. Right now, we do not have that in this
country. They have it in the United States and that is why in the US they have
been able to do this transmission of power, develop major projects, and feed it
into grids. It is all done through a regulatory process which allows you to do
that. That is why in Newfoundland and Labrador, we actually have agreements
where we can bring power into the US Eastern Seaboard and we can access those
grids and that transmission.

Mr. Speaker, in Canada right now, provinces and territories have all the
jurisdiction over the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity
within their boundaries, including restructuring initiatives and electricity
prices. The federal government has jurisdiction over electricity exports
internationally and designated interprovincial power lines and nuclear safety.

Mr. Speaker, what this motion is asking for, as I understand it, is for the
Canadian government to co-operate; they are asking for them to recognize that
this is a barrier to development of electricity in our country and that it is
holding provinces like ours back. They are asking them to negotiate with
provinces that already have full jurisdiction over electricity, to allow for the
transmission of power through those particular provinces.

Mr. Speaker, some people might say it is not fair to impose this and I will
use Quebec as an example. I listened to 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES:  remarks in the House today and I have read a number of things
on it. There are people who really feel that imposing 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright  L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many people feel that we would be really imposing ourselves on
Quebec, and that if we want to develop this project then Quebec would not be
able to stop us from running that transmission through their province. The
argument that some people made to me was: is that right? Is that fair? How would
you feel in Newfoundland and Labrador if that was the case?

Mr. Speaker, I do not look at it as bluntly as that. What I am seeing is an
opportunity to put infrastructure in place to allow for the availability of that
infrastructure to do major developments that are somewhat competitive in nature,
we know that, but at the same time it is going to bring returns for not just our
Province, but it is going to bring returns nationally as well, to the federal
government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if there was a group, say like the National Energy
Board or something, that was looking at some of these jurisdictional issues and
looking at how they could possibly do this, I think they would be surprised to
find that they would be able to come up with some very simple solutions for
accessibility that would not impede upon the other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I
think in saying that we would sign onto this, we are also saying that we are
signing on to allow at some point, maybe there is a pipeline that is going to
come through Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe there is going to be some other
kind of electricity grid that is going to have to go through here that we will
not have any control over. Maybe then we will feel a little differently.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, our issue in this Province comes from a sense of
frustration that goes back to the 1960s when the Upper Churchill was developed
in Labrador and the agreement was done with Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I will say
this, because I have heard people say Joey Smallwood did a bad deal. I am not
saying he did a good deal or a bad deal. What I am saying is at the time he
negotiated that deal, there were probably very few people in his position who
would have done anything differently. I say that because, Mr. Speaker, there
were things like escalating clauses that were not even invented then. It was not
even a part of an accounting mechanism to allow for those kinds of things.

It probably would not have mattered who was standing in that place at that
time, they probably would have done the same thing. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
history will record it that at the time the Upper Churchill deal was done, while
it may have been spearheaded by the government of the day, and at that time
Premier Smallwood, it was supported by all the political parties, the
Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and it was supported by all the
elected officials at that time. There certainly was no opposition to the project
being raised by any industrial or business sector out there in the Province. So,
I guess what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, at the time that it was done, history
recorded it as being a good deal and supported by the vast majority of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I guess it is hard lessons that are learned, and we are learning it every
single day. When I look at things and I see a net profit of $2.6 billion
accruing to Quebec Hydro in a year, while we do not even take a half a million
dollars out of the project at this stage, it is very frustrating. I can tell you
it has always been a sore point in Labrador and a sore point throughout the
Province. Unfortunately, I guess it will continue to be as we continue to lose
money and Quebec Hydro continues to build their fund. How do we ever balance
that, and I am not sure if we can. Repeated Premiers have tried, from Frank
Moores to Brian Tobin, to Brian Peckford, to Clyde Wells, to Danny Williams.
They have all tried to change that agreement. They have all tried to look for a
better deal for the people of the Province, as they should do in their capacity
as Premiers.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, none of them achieved the level of success they
had hoped for. As a result of it, I guess we are stuck where we are unless
something can be changed. I think at this stage, Mr. Speaker, the only way we
will change it is going to be through political negotiations. I do not think it
will change legally. I do not think the courts will rule in our favour because
they have not done so in the past when it comes to a fairer benefit on the Upper
Churchill. The only way to achieve it is probably going to be through political
negotiations, and of course that is going to include negotiations that will look
at power sales beyond 2041. The day may come, I may not be here and a lot of us
may not be here, but I think the day will come when we will see the tide change
on that particular deal and we will start seeing benefits, real benefits
accruing to the Province as a result of it.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about Muskrat Falls for a minute because I firmly
believe that we would never be even discussing the Muskrat Falls development in
the context that we see it drafted today if we had an East-West power corridor
in Canada. I do not think we would have ever seen it. I think we would have
automatically seen the development of Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, and I think
we would have seen that power exported and transported right into the markets. I
do not think we would be building a transmission line to the Island, despite the
defences of the government in arguing that it is the best cost option. Mr.
Speaker, I just do not think we ever would have seen it. I think we are seeing
it today simply because they are limited in how they can actually transmit power
out of Labrador today and get it into the marketplace.

If the corridor was there, again, I do not think we would be seeing the deal
that we see today on Muskrat Falls. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would even go so far
as to say we would not even be seeing the Maritime Link. I do not think there
would be $1.2 billion going into that link and I certainly do not think we would
be doing a deal to give away of 20 per cent of the power on that development for
the next thirty-five years to a private company in Nova Scotia.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor, as hard as they tried, lost the case in
the courts. They saw the decision by the Rιgie board out of Quebec and they knew
they were at a stalemate. They knew they were not going to be able to move ahead
with this development in the next few years. As I said, the appeal in the courts
is not even going to be heard for another year, so they looked at what their
other options were.

The best sell on Muskrat Falls, in the government's mind at the time, was to
bring power to the people on the Island, to their own people. That was the best
sell on that particular project. Whether it is the most viable at the end of the
day will remain to be seen as we get to see the numbers crunched and the DG3
numbers crunched to look at the viability of the project.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe there is a tremendous potential for energy
development in this Province and in Labrador still. I understand where the
markets are. Unlike everybody else, I follow those things. I know that right now
the market is down, but I do not believe it is always going to be down. I
believe, Mr. Speaker, we have missed some great opportunities in developing the
Lower Churchill and exporting that power. I believe our best opportunity to
secure good markets at high prices for export would have probably been ten years
ago, but that time is gone.

I know the markets are down now and I know power is trading at probably 4.5
cents, which is relatively low, but I do believe it will climb again. I do
believe they will bounce back and I do believe there will be opportunities for
us to do the bigger project of Gull Island in the future in Labrador. I agree, I
think there is going to be huge demand for industrial power in Labrador  huge
demands  far beyond what any of us are even seeing today.

My prediction, Mr. Speaker, is not unlike what the minister commented on
today when he talked about aluminum smelters and everything else that have been
set up in Quebec. There are four there now and I believe two of them were built
just in the last couple of years. There is tremendous opportunity to do a lot of
different industrial projects if the power is there and if the power is
affordable.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that to do projects like this, they have to be
able to pay for themselves. That is why we cannot just give this power away, nor
can we pay huge tariffs to have it transmitted. We need to ensure that we get
the best benefits that we can from it. I think that the federal government has a
responsibility to work with provinces to ensure that there are proper regulatory
processes and proper infrastructure in place so that those provinces can do
developments that are going to contribute to the long-term economic viability of
their province and that they should have that ability. That is the job of the
federal government: to make it happen in consultation with all of us.

I think my time has run out, has it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Okay, just a minute to clue up, if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when I look at what is happening in Labrador
today, I see so much irony in the situation. Obviously I was not around in 1927
when the Privy Council was deciding, you know, because I am only twenty-nine.
Mr. Speaker, when the Privy Council was making the decision 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, Mr. Speaker. If I am out
of line, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, in 1927  and I have heard the story so many times growing up in
Labrador through different generations of elders. They would talk about when the
decision was made as to whether Labrador would be given to Quebec or given to
Newfoundland. The story was that nobody really wanted Labrador; we were the land
that God gave to Cain. We were nomadic people, we were First Nations and Inuit,
we were remote, we were in the North. Mr. Speaker, we, I suppose, were looked at
as a liability probably more so than anything else. Therefore, nobody wanted to
accept us.

At the time the decision was made that we would be given over to Newfoundland
and we were, Mr. Speaker. I guess it was after those days, and as the time
progressed we saw major projects in Labrador. We saw the iron ore mines coming
on, Mr. Speaker, in the late 1950s, early 1960s. We saw the Upper Churchill in
the 1960s as well; we saw huge developments, forestry developments in Labrador.
It started being looked at as an industrial sector. Obviously, Quebec's interest
was piqued once again and all of a sudden I think they probably regretted not
looking for our hand in matrimony in 1927, and certainly regretted it since
then.

Mr. Speaker, I deal a lot with Quebec communities because my district is on
the border of the Quebec North Shore. I fly in and out of there all the time. I
spend quite a bit of time there; I know people there, the same as I do in my own
district. They are very much the same lifestyle; they make their living in the
same way and have the same kind of culture, or very similar. When you deal with
such close relations as that with your neighbours, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to
believe that we have these larger fundamental problems in terms of
jurisdictional issues on government to government things.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can resolve some of that so that we can move
forward because I think the opportunities are there for us and for Quebec.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely delighted to stand in my place here today and give support to
a private member's motion brought forth by my colleague, the Member for Port de
Grave. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in this Chamber would hesitate for a
moment to get on their feet and support this motion today. As a matter of fact,
to see someone get up and not support it really gave me some great concern,
because this is not about today. This is about yesterday; this is about
tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is not only building what we
believe to be a resource for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we
are in a position to be able to talk about nation building and allowing our
clean, renewable energy to cross borders.

When we talk about borders, Mr. Speaker, we tend to talk about borders with
regard to countries. In this great country of Canada, I cannot believe that
there are any impediments to us sharing our good fortune of having the cleanest
energy in the world and being able to get it, not only north to south but also
from east to west, in all directions, from coast to coast to coast, Mr. Speaker,
because it is an important consideration of all of us.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I heard the member previous to me talking about her
age, but I also must talk about my age, because I am certainly old enough to
remember when the Upper Churchill Project was brought on stream. Of course, when
it was brought on stream there was a lot of talk about what it meant for this
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also what it meant to not only the
country of Canada, but the country of the United States, that here in North
America we would have such a wonderful resource that could be shared. We, as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, saw this as a resource that could continue to
bring this country  this Province, I should say, as well as the country,
revenue that would allow us to continue on building on our resources that could
help the people of this particular Province.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits of that project, we saw slip
through our fingers, and it slipped through our fingers because the maximum that
accrued from that particular project ended up in the hands of our neighbouring
Province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, when we look at some of the social programs
that that province is offering, with regard to low tuition, with regard to
housing, with regard to other social areas, and providing the needed in daycare,
in education, all of the things that the people of Quebec are benefiting to.
Looking at those benefits, Mr. Speaker, a lot of those could be ours. Not that
we would begrudge Quebecers their social programs, but again, that Upper
Churchill would have ensured that we would not be a have-not province, but we
could have grown so much since the mid-sixties to where we are now.

That is water over the falls, I guess, Mr. Speaker, because we continue to
say what if and what if. Now we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, where we are
looking at the Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, and Gull Island. Again, a
tremendous resource, a resource that not only are we willing to use for our own
benefit, but also to share with other provinces, and indeed, with another
country. Mr. Speaker, we are, as a government, trying to make sure to the best
of our ability that we are going to get the maximum benefit from Muskrat Falls 
and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Following in the wake of that, we look to Gull Island as a
project again, but again, contingent on our development of the Lower Churchill
will be our ability to wheel power not only south but also towards the West as
well, Mr. Speaker, and henceforth this motion that is put forth here today.
Again, we had some speakers get up and very eloquently outline some of the
things that I am talking about right now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate how important it is that we get that
capacity to be able to wheel the power; how are we going to do it? We know what
we have to do, because we want to make sure that the benefit of this green
energy is for the benefit of Canada; Ontario, for one, is very much interested
in making sure that this happens because they realize how important it is to
have access to this power.

As we have already pointed out, in other parts of this great Nation of ours,
we have oil that has been piped from one province to another and for the benefit
of a particular province. We have goods and services that transcend borders
without any difficulty at all, and yet we have to stand by and watch even now as
some of the excess power that belongs to us cannot be yielded from the Upper
Churchill. We are trying to make sure that that does not happen with the Lower
Churchill.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this motion draws attention to the fact that this is a
country of which we are a equal Province and we are asking this Chamber, this
parliament, to join with the Member for Port de Grave in putting forth our
desire to lobby the federal government to move in a manner on the side of not
only this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also all the provinces
throughout Canada, and the Territories, to make sure that impediment, that
inability for us as a Province to share this power with other provinces other
than Quebec, will take place.

Mr. Speaker, it is a federal issue. It is an issue that we need to bring to
the foreground and the forefront. It is an issue that we must resolve as we
continue to try and develop the resource that we have. I have heard mention of
the Big Land of Labrador and certainly how 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, indeed, we should applaud Labrador, because they have
come a tremendous distance since that 1927 Privy Council decision to cede that
territory to Newfoundland at that particular time. We have grown to be the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The resources in Labrador are tremendous and it bodes well that we as a
parliament are talking about making sure that the benefits of those resources
come into the right hands, not of neighbouring provinces, Mr. Speaker, but of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is with those revenues that we can
build our better roads; it is with those revenues that we can increase our
ability to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a tremendous investment, an investment that will continue not only for
us, Mr. Speaker, because it is already pointed out, when we finally come to
2041, in 2041 the Upper Churchill then is returned to its rightful owner. Even
though we share it  I know there is a partnership  we will get the maximum
benefit from that particular project, Mr. Speaker.

2041 is a very, very important date, a date that we have established as a
government as a year when all of the resources of hydro power should be in our
hands. As a matter of fact, it is around that date that the current Premier has
 as a former Minister of Natural Resources, it was she who was the architect of
the Energy Plan which we now are looking at as the direction that we need to go
into as we try to build upon the tremendous potential, not only of hydro energy,
but of oil, of wind, of the different alternatives that we have.

We as a Province, as the Premier has often referred to, need to be that
energy warehouse for North America. That is the concept that is at the base of
where we are today. This government has certainly done everything within their
power to bring forth a way in which we as a Province can become that super
warehouse; not only a super warehouse, Mr. Speaker, but a warehouse of energy:
clean, renewable energy.

As I pointed out, I was just a boy, I suppose, in the mid-1960s when this
Churchill Falls development happened. My brothers, my brothers-in-law, cut their
teeth on their profession as pipefitters and as welders in Churchill Falls. Of
course, the many benefits that came from that project brought a lot of revenue
and a lot of money for a short period of time, that megaproject.

As well, Mr. Speaker, if any of the people in this Chamber or indeed, those
who are looking in on their TVs, if anyone ever gets the chance to visit the
Churchill Falls project, I tell you, it is like something out of science
fiction. It is almost a wonder. I would think it would be a wonder of the world
because the engineering that was done in the mid-1960s is a credit to those who
put it together. It is, absolutely. Not only that, but this project, unlike many
projects  and we have seen it now over the last forty-some odd years on stream.
I guess none of you have heard of a time when it was not generating electricity.
Not only is it clean energy, Mr. Speaker, but the maintenance on that, even
though it is a lot of maintenance, it is a project that will go on forever and a
day. Muskrat Falls is the same, or Gull Island is the same.

Again, it comes right around, Mr. Speaker, to: Where are we going to be able
to go if we cannot get that ability to wheel this tremendous, I call it, gift to
the other provinces of this country? Where will we go if we cannot wheel it
west? We only have one other direction in which we can go. We want to be part of
nation building, Mr. Speaker. This is what this motion is all about, to again
alert our Prime Minister, his government, and not only that but the governments
and the people of Canada. We need support. We need to have a movement that will
bring attention to where we are. This is where we would ask all of those perhaps
tree-huggers and environmentalists to get together.

My time, I know, is running out, Mr. Speaker. In my district is where we have
the Holyrood generating plant. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are things that
have come out of those stacks over the years that I shudder to think may have
ended up in people's bodies. We have a responsibility to our environment. We
have a responsibility to be stewards of our environment, Mr. Speaker. As
stewards, we have a responsibility to take what we have and to build upon it and
also to share it, and sharing it with our counterparts throughout Canada but
also to our American neighbours. We want a cleaner world. We want a cleaner
world, and it is not only for who we are today, but I look to perhaps my
grandchildren or great-grandchildren who may look back on these days and talk
about how a government was able to get the ball rolling, keep it rolling, and
provide a secure future, a secure, environmentally friendly future for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those who got up today in support of this
motion. Again, I ask as we prepare perhaps to vote for this motion, that it
would be obvious to all that the only way the vote could turn out is that it
would have to be unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I never thanked all those who have
contributed to this debate this afternoon. I think it has been a great debate.
The Minister of Natural Resources took us on a history lesson and did a
wonderful job of describing some of the trials and tribulations that this
Province has faced since 1927 to have access and be allowed like real partners,
to move our resources across this country in a fair and equitable manner.

The Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development spoke, Mr.
Speaker, about all the economic opportunities, the benefits, and the trade that
can occur if we could only have an East-West corridor and everybody come on line
and do their thing. The Minister of Transportation and Works got up and talked a
little bit about his generation, and his generation of brothers cutting their
eye teeth on Churchill Falls. I too can relate to that, Mr. Speaker, as my uncle
went to Churchill Falls for many years and worked in Churchill Falls. I will
never forget the time, Mr. Speaker, that I, myself, had the opportunity to visit
the site and got in an elevator and went 1,100 feet underground and stood on
those turbines. You could just feel, or sense the shivers going up and down your
spine by just standing there with all that water and all that energy beneath
your feet.

Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit disappointed in the comments from the Member
for St. Barbe. I am not sure that he actually read the BE IT RESOLVED section of
the resolution. It clearly says here in the resolution: BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED
that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to co-operate in
exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission corridors
within Canada. That is not going out there on a limb. That is out there  that
is not imposing your will. That is talking about working together with the
Council of the Federation and our partners in the federal government in doing
something that is good for this country, Mr. Speaker.

He talked about imposing. We are not imposing; we are asking people to work
together and co-operate. We have the energy, Mr. Speaker, we all know. We have
spoke in this House  many people here before us, they have come and gone. We
all know, Mr. Speaker, that we have the energy. We have the energy that it
takes, but we have to have access. If we cannot find agreement, Mr. Speaker, and
God knows we have all been here today and we have all talked about all the
different ways that various Premiers  and we have been close at times. We
thought we finally had a deal, but it fell apart at whatever juncture. Mr.
Speaker, we have been close at times.

We clearly said, Mr. Speaker, the need for Muskrat Falls. Muskrat Falls is
the first phase. Muskrat Falls is the first phase and that phase is 824
megawatts, creating 2,200 jobs of employment. We need that for our Island need.
I know there was some concern expressed by the Member for Cartwright  L'Anse au
Clair, but again we need that. Our domestic need is growing, we need power, and
we have to have power from somewhere. Muskrat Falls is the best option right
now, Mr. Speaker. In the interim, while we are getting ready to develop Gull
Island and maybe one day have that East-West corridor, Mr. Speaker, we are going
to develop Muskrat Falls to allow industrial development to continue in
Labrador. We will be able to assist that industrial development with clean
energy out of Muskrat Falls.

We need the corridor, Mr. Speaker. With all the positive remarks that came
from all members on the opposite side, I am not sure where the Member for St.
Barbe was coming. We are not giving anybody power; we are not giving anything
away. We want a fair, equitable deal. The deal we have is not equitable; it is
not fair. When someone makes I believe $2.6 billion and another person makes
$180 billion or $18 million, or whatever it is, that is not a fair deal, Mr.
Speaker. That is not equitable.

If this would happen, Mr. Speaker, if we could get this East-West corridor,
it is not only about going west and south; it is about going west, south, north
 we can go wherever we want, Mr. Speaker. The markets are there. We can feed
into the markets, Mr. Speaker. If we have excess power, we feed it into the
system, into the grid, and we sell it. Some days we are going to make less
money; some days we are going to make more money. That is the way the spot
market works. Mr. Speaker, we are going to get revenue from it.

I was pleased to hear the Member for Signal Hill  Quidi Vidi talk about how
environmentally friendly this is, that it is good for Canada, and that we will
meet some of our targets. We do have markets, as well, within our own country.
We hear tell of it every day. Ontario, Mr. Speaker, needs power. We have power
and we cannot get it to them. They need it and we cannot get it. Yes, there are
great examples across the country where deals have been made: Saskatchewan and
Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta. We can go on and on. There have been
deals made, but we cannot seem to get that full East-West link. We need that
East-West link. We should not be cornered. We should not be bottled up, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems when we are doing this and one of the
problems probably with the Churchill Falls signing is that we do not know what
the future holds. I think we are getting a better grasp on what the future
holds, Mr. Speaker, but forty years from now we do not know what the future
holds. It is very difficult to predict. I have heard the Minister of Finance
stand in this House many times and talk to the fact that it is very difficult to
predict the price of oil on a daily basis. Can you imagine what it is like to
predict the price of hydroelectricity forty years from now?

I believe, Mr. Speaker, there will be a good price for hydroelectricity
because I believe at the end of the day hydroelectricity will always be
available to us. It is not something you have to guess. The water will run and
we will be able to produce energy from the flow of the water. Mr. Speaker, I
think that will be one of the key things as we go forward in forty years' time.

We have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that in making any kind of deal we make a
deal that is going to be fair and equitable to all parties, and that we put a
deal in place that will make the lives good for our children and grandchildren.
When I stand here today and speak to you, Mr. Speaker, I have two small
children. I want to ensure that any deal we go into will benefit them and the
grandchildren that may come after that.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, and it is getting late in the day, I will
probably end up closing here. Again, we have some barriers. We have a leadership
barrier; we need someone to step up here, Mr. Speaker, and lead the way. We need
the provinces to come together; when the Council of the Federation comes
together, there seems to be a new willingness to talk about an East-West
corridor. I am sure when our Premier gets there and gets involved in that
debate, Mr. Speaker, she will go ahead and she will discuss and want an
East-West corridor.

We also need some leadership on behalf of the federal government, Mr.
Speaker, to step to the table and make sure that they can influence and use some
of their influence. As well, this completes our energy system. If we can make
this East-West corridor, we will have a grid, we will have energy, and we can
supply the needs of all Canadians and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Everybody will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great privilege today to present this resolution
to the House and it is a great privilege today to speak to this resolution. I
hope all hon. members will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The debate is now concluded.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Summon the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the private
member's motion?